Hansard, 2004-11-24

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2004) To (2004) Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani 21 Nov 24 Nov Mr Ng Ser Miang 22 Nov 30 Nov Mr Yeo Cheow Tong 22 Nov 25 Nov Mr Davinder Singh 24 Nov 26 Nov Mr K Shanmugam 24 Nov 26 Nov Ms Olivia Lum Ooi Lin 24 Nov 26 Nov Mr Inderjit Singh 25 Nov 26 Nov Mr Charles Chong 26 Nov 28 Nov 03 Dec 04 Dec Mr Tan Soo Khoon 26 Nov 26 Nov Dr Wang Kai Yuen 26 Nov 29 Nov Mr Abdullah Tarmugi 03 Dec 04 Dec 06 Dec 08 Dec 26 Dec 31 Dec Dr Ng Eng Hen 05 Dec 12 Dec Mr Hawazi Daipi 06 Dec 24 Dec Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee 06 Dec 13 Dec Mr Lim Boon Heng 06 Dec 12 Dec Dr Ong Seh Hong 06 Dec 08 Dec Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 06 Dec 21 Dec Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 09 Dec 14 Dec 20 Dec 24 Dec Mr Khaw Boon Wan 17 Dec 21 Dec Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 17 Dec 26 Dec Mr Chew Heng Ching 20 Dec 31 Dec

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:

23rd November, 2004 (1) Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief From Income Tax) (Amendment No. 2) Bill (2) Goods And Services Tax (Amendment) Bill (3) Estate Duty (Amendment)Bill (4) Income Tax (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to recent reports in the Straits Times on molestation and rape cases, (a) how many of these cases were victims who are known to the culprits; (b) what are the measures taken to reduce these incidents; and (c) are there any public education programmes in the schools, as many victims were very young teenage girls.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Madam Cynthia Phua asked for the number of rape and molestation cases where the perpetrators were known to their victims. For the period 2000 to June 2004, the perpetrator was known to or acquainted with the victim in 9 out of 10 reported cases of rape. For the same period, 3 out of 10 reported cases of outrage of modesty were committed by persons known to the victims.

To deter would-be perpetrators, the Police conducts patrols at entertainment nightspots and their vicinity to maintain a visible presence. The Police works closely with residents, grassroots organisations and other agencies to enhance the safety in the neighbourhoods. These initiatives, under the Community Safety and Security Programme or CSSP framework, include fixing additional lighting to brighten public places at night, setting up neighbourhood watch groups, organising joint patrols and house visits involving Police and residents and holding talks and exhibitions.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Police have been educating students that they too have a part to play in preventing molest and rape. Schools conduct public education programmes to educate our young on personal safety and prevention of sexual abuse. These are comprehensively covered in subjects such as Civics and Moral Education, Social Studies, and Health Education. Police complements MOE's efforts by conducting school assembly talks to educate students on what they can do to prevent themselves from falling victim to rape and molest. So far, 99 such talks have been conducted this year.

Let me assure the House that we view every case seriously. Whilst Police will continue to maintain its presence to deter potential perpetrators and take the necessary enforcement actions, members of the public can also help by taking an active role in ensuring their own personal safety as well as of those around them.

Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how come an American, Jack West, 58 years old, who is a sex offender, was able to enter Singapore and to teach in schools here and investigations were only instituted after the New Paper reported of his presence in Singapore.

Secondly, should the sponsors of a work pass applicant be made accountable and asked to undertake the due diligence checks before recommending him to the Ministry for processing?

Sir, for foreigners who come to work in Singapore, we do not carry out checks with their home countries whether they have got criminal records. As to whether the Ministry of Manpower could carry out such checks, I think a balance has to be struck. In answer to a question from Ms Irene Ng on the need for checks to be done on employees, I said that we have to maintain a balance. There are certain professions which, because of sensitivity, for example, if you work in a security area, checks need to be done, but not so in this case.

Sir, since many of these victims are very young girls, should not our schools be more secure in the sense that either the Ministry of Law or the Ministry of Home Affairs as well as the Ministry of Education should check all these work permit applicants before they are employed in Singapore?

Sir, I think we should separate the issues. In terms of the security of school premises, as Mdm Phua knows, this has been beefed up. In terms of strangers going to schools, whether it is for mischief such as terrorism or even for more down-to-earth matters as disturbing the students, both in terms of possible sexual abuse or even gang activities, the schools have beefed up too. Certainly, for workers working in school premises, the schools can carry out due diligence checks but it will be quite another thing to say that all those who work with the school should also be checked for their background. This may mean rolling back what we are trying to do to help people who have a record but have turned over a new leaf to be able to work productively.

Sir, can I ask the Minister whether he would consider it a preventive measure, especially when foreigners come in to set up student agencies, etc, to do a background check.

The second question is for those who have been convicted for molest or rape, what kind of rehabilitation programmes are carried out and whether there are repeat offenders amongst them and, if so, what is the rate?

Sir, the conducting of checks on foreigners coming in to set up agencies involving children is something which is within MOM's purview. I can ask MOM to consider that.

As for the other question, the Prisons Department has got this 3R programme which generally reaches out to prisoners to help them refresh, restrain and exercise responsibility. Whether it is sexual offence or other offences, as the Member knows, the Prisons Department takes this HUMANS approach to try to help the prisoners after they have served an initial period of confinement and they have felt the punishment. For sexual offenders, they are also taken under this wing.

Sir, I was in particular referring to a specialised kind of rehabilitation programme, because there are quite a number of offenders. Is there a need and, if so, would the Ministry consider bringing in some expertise in that regard?

We can consider that. The Prisons Department is always willing to try new programmes but, like I have said, there is already an outreach to them under this general 3R programme.

2. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Government will consider banning smoking in pubs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government regularly reviews the list of places where smoking is prohibited. The National Environment Agency (NEA) is currently reviewing the list of places which are not covered under the current smoking ban. These places include not just pubs, but also bus shelters, bus interchanges, public toilets, hawker centres and coffeeshops. Some members of the public have given feedback on banning smoking in places like pubs, hawker centres and coffeeshops. NEA will be studying the issues carefully, and conduct consultation with the public and businesses before a decision is made.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether it is correct that studies have shown that smoking in the smoke of others increases the risk of lung cancer by 20-30% and heart diseases by 25-30%? Is it not a fact that environmental tobacco smoke contains approximately 4,000 chemicals that cause health hazard. Has there been measurement done on the environmental tobacco smoke level in our pubs here? Should the Minister endeavour to better protect the health of non-smokers in public places? Should he not highlight to businessmen on the successful experiences of other countries and smoke-free pubs, especially those that have managed to attract more non-smoking customers that loathe the stink of nicotine and health hazards?

Sir, I cannot confirm the figures mentioned by the Member but the point that she is making, which is widely accepted by the health community, is that passive smoking does increase the risk of getting diseases such as cancer.

On the point as to whether or not we should protect non-smokers, I agree entirely with her that we should protect non-smokers and that is why we are reviewing the places which are not covered under the current smoking ban. But we will also have to bear in mind that we have to consult widely both the public and the businesses. That is why I mentioned in my reply earlier that the businesses will be consulted because they also have to be made to understand that if we move, this should not affect them adversely but, at the same time, we want them to be a responsible partner in the move to encourage people not to smoke and take up healthy lifestyles.

Sir, I would urge the Minister to look actively at banning smoking in those places where there are many young children, especially at hawker centres and eating houses. I am a passive smoker. My mother has passed away but my father is an active smoker. It is very easy for a passive smoker to become a smoker because you are used to the smoke. I would like the Ministry to actively look into banning smoking in such public places.

Sir, again, I would like to thank the Member because we do have evidence to show that non-smokers, who are exposed to the smoking environment, will eventually pick up the smoking habit and this is something that we want to prevent. As I mentioned in my reply, we will consult and consider all the issues carefully before we move because there are implications. We will finish the study before we make a decision.

Sir, earlier on, I asked on the environmental tobacco smoke level measurement. Could the Minister address that question, please?

My apologies, Sir. I do not have the answer to that. Let me check whether we have done the test or not. This is something that is done jointly by my Ministry together with the Ministry of Health. I will check and if the information is available, I will pass it on to the Member.

3. Mr Zainudin Nordin asked the Minister for National Development with the existence of newer and better design clothes drying racks fitted to the new and upgraded HDB flats, will HDB consider carrying out a one-time retrofitting exercise for flats fitted with the older design drying racks.

Sir, the pipe socket clothes drying system has been in use in HDB flats since the 1960s. The pipe sockets are used to hold bamboo poles for hanging of clothes outside the kitchen area.

With changes in flat design, HDB introduced the recessed clothes drying system in 1995. Under this system, both ends of the bamboo poles are supported by clothes drying racks installed at the service balcony/kitchen on one side, and the concrete ledge outside the bedroom on the other side. As the poles are supported at both ends, they are more stable and make for easier hanging of clothes for residents.

Both types of clothes drying systems are safe so long as residents are careful when hanging out their clothes. It is therefore not necessary for HDB to carry out a one-time retrofitting exercise for all the flats fitted with the pipe socket clothes drying system. However, as and when the flats undergo upgrading, the recessed clothes drying system can be provided as long as the flat configuration allows for it.

HDB is always looking for more innovative systems to serve residents better. HDB has piloted a new parallel clothes drying rack system in new flats. If successful, HDB will install the system in all its new flats.

Sir, we are aware that we have a greying population and I think this problem will become more acute as time goes by. May I know what kind of timeframe the Ministry is looking at to make improvements to the existing old system?

Sir, the pilot project is currently implemented in two areas in Queenstown and Toa Payoh. Once we have gotten the feedback from the residents and have reviewed the implementation; if it is successful and accepted, going forward, we will start to use it for all new flats.

Sir, we are talking about old flats and not new flats which will be taken care of. But we are urging the Minister to look at the older flats because these are where our older residents are living. This item is included in the Main Upgrading Programme but it is not included in the Interim Upgrading Programme or the Lift Upgrading Programme. Could the Minister consider, due to our aging population, installing this item under these two programmes?

Sir, the Lift Upgrading Programme is purely for the purpose of upgrading lifts to serve all floors. The Interim Upgrading Programme generally looks at the common areas in the precinct. Therefore, the MUP is the only programme right now that includes the provision of new clothes drying system.

I recognise the fact that our population is aging and there are more elderly people in our midst and especially when HDB builds high-rise buildings, the existing clothes drying system may not be ideal. But it is safe, if used properly and the cost involved is also not trivial. Therefore, I think it is prudent for us to adopt new systems as material science improves and new designs come up, and we will do so progressively.

Sir, I would like to urge the Minister to reconsider this matter. Because these clothes drying racks occupy part of the tenant's space. It is considered as common property. For the Interim Upgrading Programme, it involves the upgrading of the common environment. Would the Minister consider including this item into the interim upgrading so that our existing flat owners do not have to wait so long for improvements?

Sir, normally, a working committee will be set up for the Interim Upgrading Programme or the Main Upgrading Programme. The working committees, at ground level, would make such decisions and trade-offs as to what works they would like to undertake. I think we will have no objections if the working committee feels that this is an area of work which they would like to undertake in lieu of other works which the budget would allow.

Sir, while we are on the subject of bamboos, can I find out whether there are any safety elements in implementing the new system rather than just focus on cost?

Sir, when we introduced the new system in Queenstown and Toa Payoh, these are posts that are affixed on both ends and parallel to the ledge. The disadvantage is that you will have to hang your clothes a piece at a time rather than to bring out the entire bamboo pole of clothes at one go. However, it avoids the need to buy bamboo poles. So it is a safer system, and safety is indeed a primary consideration.

Mdm Phua, one last question on bamboos.

Sir, I want to urge the Minister to consider the matter again because under the Interim Upgrading Programme, this item is not within the guidelines. If the Minister would say yes, it would be included in the guidelines, then I am very happy.

I think we can consider it.

Mr Zainudin, your next Question, please.

4. Mr Zainudin Nordin asked the Minister for Education (a) how many applications for pre-school education centre licence has his Ministry received in the last 5 years; (b) what are the criteria for approval of the licence; (c) what other Government agencies are involved in the approval process; and (d) whether these agencies work closely on such approvals or do they merely focus on their respective areas of concern.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since 1999, five years ago, MOE has registered 99 pre-school education centres or kindergartens. MOE registers kindergartens if they meet the basic requirements in land use, safety, hygiene, teacher qualifications and curriculum.

Potential operators would need to obtain clearances from the relevant authorities before applying for registration with the Ministry of Education. To start with, they must obtain legal status for their kindergartens. Hence, those that are commercially run would, first, have to register the businesses with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA). Those that are community-based must ensure their parent organisations have been registered with the Registry of Societies.

Like all businesses and societies, the kindergartens would have to seek planning approval from the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) for land use as a kindergarten, from the Fire Safety and Shelter Department (FSSD) for fire safety compliance, and from the Land Transport Authority (LTA) for traffic and parking clearance. For rebuilding or extensive alteration of premises, approval from the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) is also required.

However, for the Housing Development Board (HDB) owned premises, potential operators can obtain all the clearances for the premises through the HDB.

MOE would assess the suitability of the curriculum and teacher qualifications before granting registration. During the approval process, the relevant authorities consult with one another where necessary.

From 30th August of this year, applicants can apply for multiple licences using one Government portal, ie, Online Businesses Licensing Service (OBLS) which Members can reach at http://licences.business.gov.sg to obtain clearances from the relevant agencies, and wait for outcomes given by respective agencies. Hence, potential operators can apply for the registration of kindergartens through OBLS. The one-stop portal enables applicants to identify the clearances needed to start a kindergarten and to apply for clearances simultaneously for the proposed premises. To date, since the end of August this year, the Ministry of Education has received five applications through OBLS.

Sir, may I know, on the average, how long is the process, from the point when a company applies for a licence to the point when the licence is awarded?

Of course, it depends on specific cases. Before OBLS, on the average, it takes about four weeks. After OBLS, on the average, it takes about two weeks.

"to amend the Parking Places Act (Chapter 214 of the 1996 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for State for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Telecommunications Act (Chapter 323 of the 2000 Revised Edition) and to make a related amendment to the Broadcasting Act (Chapter 28 of the 2003 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Dr Lee Boon Yang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

1.52 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

"That this House endorses the Report of the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee, contained in Paper Cmd 9 of 2004, and supports a revised Chinese Language (CL) curriculum to: (1) enthuse all CL students and develop in them an abiding interest in the language and culture; (2) provide greater customisation and flexibility at the primary level; (3) place greater emphasis on oral fluency and reading for the majority of the students, and for those with the ability and interest, to develop stronger competence and understanding of the Chinese language and culture."

The Review Process

Members have copies of the White Paper. I will highlight the key considerations that went into this review, and the thinking behind the fundamental changes that are being recommended to the way the Chinese Language is taught and learnt.

Let me first say something about the process by which the recommended changes were arrived at. The Committee was headed by Mr Wee Heng Tin, our former Director-General of Education. Its members were mainly comprised of professional educators - school principals, academics, and heads of mother tongue language departments. They came with extensive experience in our bilingual education system. The educationists on the Committee have each had an average of 25 years in the field. Eight of the 12 members have also been Chinese Language educators either now or at some point in their careers.

The Committee consulted widely, with all our stakeholders in Chinese Language learning, including teachers and students, parents, Chinese community organisations and the media. They held 19 dialogue sessions and visited 13 schools to observe the learning of Chinese Language as it is today. MOE also conducted a comprehensive survey of Chinese Language teaching and learning, involving about 10,000 students, parents, teachers and principals. In all, the recommendations took nine months to be shaped. My Ministry could not have asked for a more thorough and informed review by a more credible team.

Flexibility and Enjoyment

There is no lack of interest in the Chinese Language in Singapore. MOE's survey of students and parents found that the vast majority recognise the importance of learning the Chinese Language. Among English-speaking homes, 92% of parents feel it is important for their child to learn the Chinese Language. The interest in learning Chinese Language is founded on a desire to retain a sense of identity, as well as the increasing spur of economic opportunities in China. But whether the reasons are cultural or pragmatic, they provide a strong foundation going forward for the learning of Chinese Language in our schools.

We are not therefore crafting changes to the Chinese Language curriculum to cater to the needs of a minority with a disinterest in the language. We are seeking to help the majority of Chinese students who, regardless of home backgrounds, want to learn their mother tongue as best they can, as part of the education they receive in school. We want them to be enthused by the language, find it relevant in their lives as they grow up, learn it to the highest level they are capable of in school, and want to keep up with the language well after they leave.

If I were to sum up the Committee's recommendations, it would be in two words - flexibility and enjoyment.

First, we have to recognise the fundamental shifts that have taken place in our social landscape. The majority of those entering Primary 1 today use English as their main language, both at home and amongst their friends and classmates. Teachers tell us that the shift in these new cohorts is striking, even compared to today's Primary 6 cohort; in other words, the shift from today's Primary 6 cohort to today's Primary 1 cohort is a significant one.

We have to regear our approaches to teaching Chinese Language to meet the needs of this new generation of Singaporeans, and future generations after them. The bilingual approach to teaching Chinese Language that we have introduced in the early primary years (Primary 1 and 2), starting with four schools in 2002 and another seven this year, was the first step. But it did not involve any change in curriculum, only selective change in teaching methods. We have to go beyond this. We must have a curriculum that is itself flexible, and tailored to the student's level of competence at the very outset. This is what the modular approach advocated by the Committee seeks to do. Some students will need more time, and a curriculum that helps them build confidence in a language that they have had little exposure to at home. Others can move faster and go further, and some will be encouraged in later years to immerse themselves more deeply in the language and culture. That is the flexibility.

The second principle underpinning the changes is the need to make Chinese Language an enjoyable, living language for our students. That has to be the common denominator for all our students, regardless of the path or elective that they choose to take, and regardless of their final level of achievement in learning the language in school.

As the Committee has observed in its report, while learning the various Chinese Language skills is important, our fundamental objective must be to nurture in our students an abiding interest in the language.

Not every student will end up working in China or using the Chinese Language to earn a living. And we cannot tell, when a child is in school, what he will do later in life and where he will end up. But if we can make every student feel engaged in the learning of the Chinese Language, to find it enjoyable and not be turned off by the way we expect him to learn it, we stand the best chance of nurturing a person who will continue to learn the language, take pride in it being his mother tongue, and want to use it after he leaves school. Or be able to brush up his skills when he needs to, for example, if he has to do China business.

Key Changes

To achieve flexibility and bring greater enjoyment into learning the Chinese Language, the Committee has made wide-ranging recommendations. It requires a total approach, not piecemeal changes. The Committee's report proposes changes in curriculum structures, assessment systems, teaching methods, textbooks and other instructional materials, and the greater use of technology. It recommends the creative use of the informal curriculum in schools, and ways for MOE to boost the quantity and quality of the Chinese Language teacher workforce.

It also calls for the support of the whole community, including parents, the newspaper and TV media, and Chinese community organisations.

I will not cover each of these areas in detail. But let me lay out the basic ideas behind the major proposals - first, the customisation of learning and a modular approach in primary schools; and second, why we should place greater emphasis, for the majority of students, on building up the ability to communicate and read in the Chinese Language.

Customisation from Primary One

Today, there is an adequate degree of customisation at the secondary school level. There are five Chinese Language syllabuses at the secondary level. A student in the Express stream, for instance, can choose from three syllabuses - Chinese Language, Higher Chinese, or Chinese Language 'B' syllabus. At the upper primary levels, we have Chinese Language and the Higher Chinese syllabuses, and for the EM3 course, the Basic Chinese syllabus.

But to maximise a child's potential in learning Chinese Language, we need a differentiated approach from the outset, that takes into account the exposure that the child has to the language at home. The vast majority of Chinese Language teachers, well over 94%, feel this is necessary. We surveyed them. They are on the ground, they know what it takes to motivate and enthuse their pupils. The vast majority say that we need a differentiated approach from the outset.

The modular approach proposed by the Committee also follows what is generally known about the natural progression in acquiring a language, which begins with developing the ability to listen and speak a language. The bridging and reinforcement modules that will be introduced, aimed at children with little exposure to the Chinese Language, will focus on developing confidence in oral skills early. Teachers will be trained to identify students who can benefit from these modules, and will advise parents. MOE will make available simple diagnostic tools to help teachers do so.

Core Standards

The Committee proposes however to maintain a common core curriculum for all students, upon which the PSLE assessment for the regular Chinese Language subject will be based. The new core curriculum will take up 70% to 80% of Chinese Language curriculum time. The modular approach being proposed does not therefore mean different end points within the regular Chinese Language curriculum at the primary level. Instead, it seeks to help students who do not have the background in the language by providing bridging and reinforcement modules in the early primary years, so that they can catch up and be better prepared for the new core curriculum. Those with the ability to go faster or further will take enrichment modules, while a significant number are also expected to take Higher Chinese at Primary 5 to 6.

I agree with the Committee's approach of maintaining a common standard during the primary years, that will serve as a foundation for all Chinese Language students. It will motivate all students to achieve this foundation in the language, including those from English-speaking backgrounds. It will be premature to 'stream' these students into a weaker Chinese Language course at the primary school stage, or to lower their expectations too early of what they can achieve with reasonable effort. What we must do, however, is to ensure that the core curriculum is shaped so that the majority of students will find it achievable and engaging.

Our challenge therefore is to make the learning of Chinese Language enjoyable, without making it unchallenging. As with the English Language or any other subject of study, students must put in the effort and practice, to achieve real learning and progress. But it should not be tedious effort, with little sense of excitement or gain. We should do all we can to keep students turned on to Chinese Language learning, not turn them off. We will have to design a realistic workload for the majority of students, give them a syllabus that allows them to relate what they learn to their daily lives, and give teachers the flexibility to venture out of the syllabus to make learning stimulating.

Emphasising listening, speaking and reading

This is also the reason for the Committee's second major proposal, which is to shift the balance of emphasis towards communication and reading, for the majority of students.

Ideally, we would want all our Chinese Language students to be fluent in all four language skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. However, in adult life, the vast majority of Singaporeans will more often hear, speak and read Chinese, than they would need to write Chinese.

We have to be practical about what is achievable for the majority of students, within a broad-based curriculum that has English as the first language. The majority will spend about 25% of their total curriculum time in their early primary years learning the mother tongue, and 15% of curriculum time in their late primary and secondary years. How do we best motivate them to want to use the language spontaneously, and learn it not just for their examinations but because they have an intrinsic interest in the language and feel that it is part of a living culture for them?

The Committee recommends that the best approach for the majority of students is to focus, first and foremost, on listening, speaking and reading the language. It is hoped that this will encourage them to converse using the Chinese Language, read stories that appeal to their imagination, and by seeing the benefits of using the language more frequently in these ways, that they will want to learn the language further. In other words, to develop the intrinsic motivation to learn the language.

To achieve greater fluency in listening, speaking and reading, we have to make space in the curriculum. To do this, the Committee recommends altering the curriculum and examinations to reduce the current heavy emphasis on character stroke memorisation; removing less frequently used characters from the syllabus; and reducing the number of passages that have to be taught from the textbooks. It does not recommend abandoning writing skills, but using it to reinforce the other language skills. Teachers should be encouraged to let students discover the art and beauty in the writing of the Chinese Language script - as many teachers already do.

We will experiment with new approaches to teaching. MOE will conduct a pilot study with some schools of new approaches that help students to read more in the early primary years, and to focus less on script-writing. We will study the feasibility of this approach, and whether it leads to children developing a greater competence and interest in the language. This has to be piloted.

Focus on learning outcomes

MOE will also study carefully the standards that students should be expected to achieve in primary and secondary schools for each of the four language skills. The Committee recommends focusing, first, on qualitative outcomes of Chinese Language learning at each stage, say at Primary 6 and Secondary 4, rather than fixing or predetermining the number of characters that a pupil should learn to read or write. The size of a child's vocabulary is one way of measuring a child's language ability. But of much greater significance is how confidently and appropriately the child can actually use and manipulate the vocabulary that he has learned.

So by the end of Secondary 4, for example, the Committee recommends that students be able to read and appreciate poems and short stories, and read most articles in local newspapers and magazines. They should be able to understand local news reports, and deliver, with some preparation, coherent views on local news reports, and other topics of interest in front of an audience; and compose a 250-300 word narrative or expository essay with the help of a dictionary and/or assistive computer tools.

MOE agrees broadly with this approach. We will work out the number of characters and words that students need to learn in order to achieve these learning outcomes - such as is required to comprehend daily news articles. For example, according to Singapore Press Holdings' Chinese Language Consultant Wang Huidi, knowing about 1,800 characters would provide 98% reading coverage of Zaobao. About 1,300 most-frequently used characters will give 95% of reading coverage.

But, as recommended by the Committee, we will move away from hard and fast rules on the number of characters and phrases that students should read or write. We will focus instead on achieving useful learning outcomes. We will keep an open mind, and adjust the syllabus requirements as we learn from experience on the ground. Our objective will be to ensure that students retain what they learn, and are able to use the vocabulary they learn in new contexts - not just be able to recall from a prescribed list of characters and phrases for the purpose of their examinations. How we assess our students will be adjusted to match this objective.

Further, as recommended by the Committee, MOE will also review the role of the character list that underpins the production of instructional materials, teaching practice and assessment. While the character list is useful in allowing teachers to know that they have adequately covered the requirements of the syllabus, it has tended to steer teaching and learning towards drilling in a prescribed list of characters. MOE will study how best we can provide teachers with some guide, while encouraging them to incorporate engaging materials and use their own methods to liven up learning.

To sum up this point, our objective will be to provide students with the room to use and practise what they have learned, so as to develop confidence and competence in the language. MOE will work out how to avoid overloading the syllabus so that we provide enough space and time in the curriculum for teachers and students to achieve this. Our Chinese Language Heads of Department point out that the current syllabus provides little room for this. Too much volume, leading to teachers rushing to complete the syllabus, as each chapter contains new or additional words and phrases that have to be mastered. They tell us students do not have time to use and practise what they learn. The Heads of Department and teachers have their own war stories. One that many recall was of a recent PSLE examination that tested the Primary 6 students on some characters that they had learnt in Primary 4. The students were stumped. They had forgotten what they had learned just two years earlier, because both teachers and students were focused on covering the Primary 5 and 6 syllabus, which was itself a demanding load.

Teachers therefore feel that there is some trade-off between volume and the quality of learning outcomes. MOE will focus on these learning outcomes as we review the curriculum. We will set realistic targets that the majority of students can achieve, provide room for innovative teaching practices and school-designed curricula, and for teachers to venture out of the regular syllabus. And we will always ask ourselves what we hope our students can do with the vocabulary and language skills that they have learned.

Encouraging excellence

The Committee also recommends encouraging students with the ability and interest to develop competence in all four language skills, and obtain a good understanding of Chinese history and culture, through the Higher Chinese curriculum.

This is an important part of the flexible curriculum strategy that MOE has taken. Higher Chinese forms the base in our efforts to provide opportunities for students with the ability to engage in deeper study of the language and culture. In January this year, as Members know, we relaxed the criteria required for students to opt for Higher Chinese in primary and secondary schools. Since the change, we have had about 25% more Secondary 1 students choosing to take Higher Chinese. MOE will post more teachers to schools where there is a critical mass of students who offer Higher Chinese, to make the study of the subject more convenient. This will be one of our priorities over the next few years, as we build up our teaching force.

Building on Higher Chinese, we are encouraging our secondary schools to enhance the Chinese Language learning environment by offering new Chinese Language-based subjects, such as Chinese Culture and Thought and Literature in Chinese as a Combined Humanities elective; Literature in Chinese is already a full subject, and we are going to allow it to be used as an elective for the Combined Humanities subject. We are extending the Language Elective Programme to a fourth Junior College from 2006, and rolling out the Bicultural Studies Programme next year.

At the other end of the spectrum, we must continue to address the needs of those who struggle with Chinese Language in secondary schools despite putting in reasonable effort. The Chinese Language 'B' syllabus was put in place in 2001 from Secondary 3 for this purpose. In January this year, apart from relaxing the criteria for students to take Higher Chinese, we also opened the Chinese Language 'B' option from Secondary 1.

Pre-school

MOE will also work with the pre-school sector to support the objectives of the Chinese Language review. We will collaborate with them in developing a curriculum framework for Chinese Language learning in the early childhood years that makes learning fun and allows children to gain confidence. This will be particularly helpful for children who get limited home exposure to the Chinese Language. By creating natural situations for preschoolers to build up their listening and speaking skills, the sector can prepare them well for the revised curriculum and teaching approaches at the primary school level in future.

ML and TL review

We will also review the learning of Malay Language (ML) and Tamil Language (TL) in our schools. This year, 58% of our Indian Primary 1 students came from homes that spoke predominantly English. The initial feedback

from Tamil parents suggests that the issues facing Tamil Language students are fundamentally not different from those encountered in learning the Chinese Language. For Malay Language students, the issues are less severe. The Malay Language shares the same script as the English Language. The majority of Malay students entering Primary 1 still use Malay Language as their dominant home language, with just 22% using the English Language. However, among Primary 1 Malay Language students with at least one parent having a university qualification, the proportion using predominantly English at home is much higher, close to 60%.

MOE will set up two high level committees to review the Malay Language and Tamil Language curriculum respectively. The composition of these committees will be announced in early December. Work should start in January next year, and we expect to complete the two reviews around August 2005.

Bilingual policy

Sir, the changes we will make to the Chinese Language curriculum are part of how we make sure bilingualism thrives in Singapore. We cannot let new generations of Singaporeans gradually lose their competence in their mother tongues, or lose their instinctive sense of identity with the cultures that the Mother Tongue Languages represent.

Our English-speaking capability, combined with our competence and feel for the Mother Tongue Languages, is our source of competitive edge, allowing us to stay relevant to both Asia and the West.

And beyond this, our Mother Tongue Languages will always be essential to give us our identity. Our cultures, languages, and values give us roots, a quiet confidence in who we are. Keeping our Mother Tongue Languages and cultures will give each new generation of Singaporeans a sense of connectedness and resilience.

This is why our bilingual policy remains a key feature of our education system, and why we now have to regear and adapt our strategies to make sure it succeeds.

Implementing the changes well

I have described the key thrusts of the proposed changes to the Chinese Language curriculum. Success in these changes will lie in thorough and well-coordinated implementation in all areas, from curriculum design to teacher training and the development of instructional materials. This will be a major priority for the Ministry of Education in the next five years. We will dedicate the necessary resources to achieve the objectives set out in the White Paper.

The most critical factor to the success of the reforms will be our Chinese Language teachers. They are also our best asset. The majority are keen on change, and many are already putting into practice new strategies to help their pupils develop a love for the language. And there are numerous examples on the ground, of teachers who inspire their students to love the language, including classes or students who would normally be considered weak in the language. So we will focus above all on helping our teachers, on preparing them to implement the changes that are to come with vigour and imagination. We will provide teachers more space, through our syllabus and examination reforms, to bring in new teaching techniques. MOE will work to recruit more teachers, from both local and foreign sources, without diminishing the quality of recruits. We will also invest more in training both new and current Chinese Language teachers, to ensure that they are confident in delivering a new, more flexible curriculum.

Mr Wee Heng Tin will chair a steering committee to oversee the Ministry of Education's implementation of the White Paper's recommendations, which include the curriculum development, research and testing of new teaching and assessment techniques, and ways to develop the teaching force. MOS Chan Soo Sen will serve as Adviser of that committee.

MOS Chan will also head another committee, a community taskforce that will set out to garner the support of the Chinese community for these changes, and to facilitate a continuing process of collaboration between our schools, parents, community organisations and the media. When parents got together to organise a Mid-Autumn Festival at Chua Chu Kang Primary School, 1,500 people turned up. We will need the support of our community organisations, industry partners and the media as we seek to develop new learning materials, songs and resources, as well as providing opportunities and platforms outside the school for our young to enjoy using the language.

Whether in school or in the community, we want the Chinese Language to come alive. Whether high-brow or low-brow, we have to find every way to make the Chinese Language fun for our children, as with the other mother tongues. For example, all of us who have children learning the Chinese Language know the emerging power of Asian pop culture. When Jurong Junior College got its JC1 students involved in Chinese pop culture recently, the students were enthralled. When zbNOW, the Lifestyle section of Zaobao, recently launched a song as part of its Popcorn programme, it was tremendously popular in schools. And that is also why the third-last round of Singapore Idol, which required Taufik, Sylvester, Olinda and Daphne to sing Asian pop songs, had a special endearing quality. And when Olinda dedicated Teresa Teng's Endless Stream Of Words or Qian Yan Wan Yu to her grandmother, everyone felt the emotion.

I would now like to invite Members to share their views on the proposed changes to the Chinese Language Curriculum.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the Education White Paper presented by the Minister for Education. Sir, I rise in support of the motion.

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Committee, led by Mr Wee Heng Tin, for an excellent report. The Committee has done a very good job in reviewing the teaching of Chinese Language in our schools and has made very bold recommendations on fundamental changes to the system.

Many teachers, language professionals and other stakeholders I spoke to welcome the recommendations. They feel that it is timely to revamp our Chinese education programme. The emergence of China, in recent history, has enhanced the economic value of the Chinese Language. Many Singaporeans doing business in China were forced to brush up on their Chinese and some were forced to acquire the language from scratch. I have a personal business friend who is about 60 years old. He could not speak a word of Chinese when he was young. About 7 or 8 years ago, he started a business venture in China and as the CEO of the joint venture, he had to relocate there to manage the business. Now, he reads Chinese, speaks Chinese and can write simple Chinese letters and emails. And he tells me that sometimes, he speaks Chinese in his dreams too, and I think he has internalised the language. When there is a need, there is a will, and when there is a will, there is a way.

However, economic value alone cannot be the sole motivation to learn the Chinese Language and, for that matter, any mother tongue. Language is alive and it is a way of life. It reflects the rich culture of the people it represents. To be sure, the Chinese used in Singapore is quite different from that in China. Let me give you an example. In Singapore, going to the market, in Chinese, we say qi ba cha. In China, they would not understand ba cha because it is a Malay word. Instead, market is shi chang or cai shi. Similarly, an air conditioner in Singapore is referred to as leng qi ji, while in China it is kong diao, mainly because in China, their air conditioner does not only produce cold air, but also warm air during winter.

Let me relate a personal experience. Many years ago, when I started to go to China for business, I took a train from Shanghai to Changzhou. It is a five-hour ride. I bought a business class ticket, called nuan zuo, meaning soft seat. I went to the cabin and there were no seats. But there were four beds, three of them were occupied, so I went to the one that belonged to me. I sat on the bed and waited for the train to set off. A lady came into the cabin and started putting her stuff on my bed. So I confronted her and said, "This bed is mine" and I showed her my ticket that says, "No. 34, nuan zuo. San shi si hou, nuan zuo." She smiled and flicked out her ticket that says, "San shi si hou, nuan ruo" meaning soft bed. She said to me, "I get the bed, you get the seat." But I said, "No seat?" So she looked at me and shook her head and said, "Sit at the end of my bed." Sir, I am sure the train service in China has improved tremendously after many years. But we do learn new things every day.

Therefore, it is important for us to recognise that language is not just a communication tool but an integral part of a society, that is, culture and history. Based on a survey by MOE earlier this year, most parents want their children to learn the Mother Tongue Language. Even among the English-speaking homes, more than 90% felt that it was important for their children to learn Chinese. They cited two reasons for their views. The first one is the potential economic value of the language given China's increasing economic power. The second is that it is part of their cultural heritage as a Chinese.

I think it is important for us to strike a balance in our efforts to encourage our students to learn Chinese well. We must motivate them not only with economic benefits but also cultural motives. The economic value of the Chinese Language is quite obvious and readily accepted. The cultural value of the language is more abstract and harder to quantify. Our challenge therefore is to take a balanced approach.

Problems in learning Chinese

The Chinese Language programme in our education system has been one of the most talked about subject, not only in this House, but also among Chinese Singaporean parents. Every parent professes to be an expert in education. The difficulties faced by our children in learning the language are indeed complex.

First of all, the overall landscape of language usage in Singapore has shifted over the years. The most significant trend was that about 50% of Chinese children entering P1 now speak predominantly English at home compared to only 36% 10 years ago. This declining use of mother tongue at home is a trend that cannot be denied and the trend is also unlikely to reverse given that English has become the dominant working language here. In fact, it would seem that Chinese is not the only mother tongue that is facing this problem, other mother tongues, like Malay and Tamil too, are facing similar trends. I think it would be useful for us to extend the review, at some point in time, to other mother tongues as well. The lack of the home environment for the use of the Chinese Language is a major shift and we can no longer assume that children entering Primary 1 will be able to at least converse and read in basic Chinese. We will need to return to the basics to make early stages of learning Chinese easier. Otherwise, the difficulties encountered by our children when they first begin to learn Chinese will put them off and cause them to lose interest in the subject. Once they lose interest,

it would be difficult for them to excel in the subject. It is therefore crucial to help our students develop and retain a healthy interest in the Chinese Language.

Another obstacle to the learning of the language is that the subject is perceived to be harder to score in an examination. The MOE survey showed that one of the main reasons cited by students who dislike Chinese was that they did not do well in the language examination. The sense of defeat and failure might have demoralised them and put them off. We need to rebuild their confidence in acquiring the language.

Studies have shown that it is not easy for a normal person to master more than one language at a reasonably high level of proficiency at the same time, regardless of his intellectual capacity. It requires specific talent to be effectively bilingual. It is more common that the majority will be able to master one language well and another language at a somewhat lower level. With the dominance of the English language as the main working language in business, and increasingly so in society, it is inevitable that the majority of Singaporeans would not be able to achieve a very high level of Chinese Language proficiency. We must therefore review our expectation and fine-tune our language programmes accordingly.

The Committee's proposals In recognition of these challenges, the Committee has made proposals to recalibrate our education system to adapt to the new landscape. The two main proposals are to adopt:

A modular approach to the teaching of the Chinese Language to suit the ability of the children; and

A "Recognise First, Write Later" approach to the teaching of Chinese Language so as to create and sustain children's interest in the language.

Sir, few can argue with the concept and the principles of these recommendations as the Committee has done a very thorough job. Most feedback I received is supportive of these new approaches. However, as the proposed changes are fundamental and impacting, there are invariably some concerns from different stakeholders. I would like to share some of these concerns, and I hope that the Minister would consider and address them.

Lowering standard

First, there is some concern among the Chinese language professionals that the proposed changes will result in further decline in the standard of the language. They perceive these changes as a compromise solution to ease the pressure on our children. Are we in reality adjusting our standard to the lowest denominator? If so, then the question is whether this will be the start of a vicious circle and the standard will continue to slide as time goes on. Their concern is understandable, given that they have invested much of their life to promote the Chinese Language.

While I am Chinese educated too, I take a slightly different view. I believe that, firstly, the decline in the overall Chinese standard among Singaporean students is more a result of the changed environment. If we do not change our teaching programme and instead continue to make Chinese learning a painful and stressful experience in the initial years of primary education, our children will lose interest in the subject and they will discard the language as soon as they leave school. Over time, the real standard of the language could slide even faster. I agree with the Committee that by making the initial learning process more interesting and more pleasant, we can hope to retain our children's interest in the subject at least a while longer and, hopefully, they will be able to learn and retain more of what they learn. This perhaps is the one aspect of "teach less, learn more".

What is more important, perhaps, is to ensure that there are sufficient avenues to allow those who are talented and have a special interest in the language to pursue their studies further. We could create more opportunities for those who want to pursue Chinese Language to a much higher standard to do so. For example, students who are in the polytechnics because they could not qualify for university admission could be offered special courses in the Chinese Language in the university or NIE which may eventually lead to a diploma or degree. This will allow more peaks of excellence in the Chinese Language to emerge and average up the standard of the language here.

We may need to explain this more clearly to the Chinese community to address their concern about the standard of the language falling as a result of the changes in the education policy. This will help harness their support for our policy.

Some basic writing skill is still needed

Second, while I agree that the requirement to learn complex writing skills should be deferred, I think students should still learn the basic strokes and simple characters at an early stage. These basic strokes are like the radicals of the Chinese characters. They are like alphabets in English, and they are the basic components of Chinese characters. They are essential in helping students recognise words. Without a good familiarity with them, it would be difficult for students to recognise and retain Chinese characters. Some writing will also help students internalise the language and reinforce their reading skill.

Therefore, I would like to urge the Ministry to consider retaining some basic writing skills even in the lower primary classes, but it probably would not be necessary to test these skills in the examinations.

Selection process of the modular system

Third, I would like to touch on the selection process in the modular system. While the modular approach to teaching Chinese will allow students of varying abilities to progress at their own pace, such an approach will involve a selection process. The proposal calls for a Core Module for all students in the primary schools. The weaker ones will take up the Bridging or Reinforcement Module while the stronger students will pursue the Enrichment Module. The question is: what is the basis of determining the ability of the students entering Primary 1, so as to decide which module they should take up? Will they be put through a test? Will it be purely based on the language background of the student's family?

The concern is that this system will result in another form of streaming, this time at an even earlier age. Some students may be slow starters and they may benefit from the Bridging and Reinforcement Modules. However, if they are able to catch up later on and even do well in the Chinese Language, will there be sufficient lateral flexibility to allow them to switch over to the Enrichment Modules?

I think there will be varying abilities among the students, especially in the earlier years. It would be difficult to determine their fate at such an early stage. It would be good to maintain lateral flexibility to cater to students who may be late bloomers. Perhaps one way is to allow all students to participate in the Enrichment Module. The weaker ones will take up the Bridging or Reinforcement Module as an additional programme to help them catch up. This way, they will not lose out, if they can catch up later. Of course, if they are unable to catch up after some time and teachers feel that it would be better for them to focus on the basic modules, then it would be better for them to give up the Enrichment Module to concentrate on the foundation. The teachers can explain to their parents and persuade them accordingly.

Examination system must be adjusted

Fourth, despite the changes in the education policy, in practice, the examination system has a great influence on the behaviour of schools, students and parents. The format of the examination needs to be revamped to be in line with the objectives of the new approach. I am glad that the Committee has proposed to do so over time. However, we must ensure that teachers are familiar with the pending changes in the examination format so that they are ready and are able to help their students to be ready for the new format. The recent incident in the PSLE Science paper is perhaps a useful lesson to draw upon.

It is also crucial to recognise that parents too play an important role as a partner in the children's education. More specifically, they get very involved in their children's preparation for examinations. Therefore, schools must also explain the impending changes to the parents, so that they would not be caught by surprise.

Perhaps, we should also put less emphasis on paper examinations at the end of each year but put more emphasis on children's performance throughout the year. For example, students could be given project work and asked to present their results. Their performance can be scored and counted towards the final results. This way, they can be assessed based on their ability to use the language rather than on their performance in a single examination. Teaching/reading materials must be improved

Fifth, we must improve our textbook and reading materials. According to the MOE survey, one of the top reasons cited by students who liked Chinese is that they find the Chinese textbook interesting. Therefore, it is important for us to continue to improve the content of our textbooks to make it even more interesting and engaging. I hope the Ministry will put in resources in this area.

What I find lacking though are good, interesting and captivating reading materials outside the school. Our bookstores here carry quite a lot of Chinese books, but a large proportion of them are translated materials from western literature. Most original Chinese books circle around a handful of legends, such as the Three Kingdoms, Water Margin, Journey to the West, and Dreams of the Red Chamber, and so on. In fact, there are many versions of them. Maybe it is a commercial consequence, as the market here for Chinese books is much smaller than that for English ones. But we must break this vicious circle. While we empower our children to read, we must also ensure that there are abundant supplies of reading materials that will interest them.

Perhaps the Ministry could consider various alternatives. For example, we can bring in better reading materials from China or Taiwan directly and make them available for students and parents, or put them in the school libraries so that students can have easy access to them. As a last resort, we could also develop such materials ourselves in collaboration with other agencies.

Creating opportunities to use the language

Sixth, while we improve the teaching of the Chinese Language, we must also look into ways to create more opportunities to use the language in schools and in the communities. This will go a long way towards keeping the language alive and making its learning a living experience rather than a dry and boring process.

Some have suggested that a day in the week be designated as "Speak Mandarin Day" in the schools. I am not so sure this would be effective. Other than the difficulties in communicating with other races who do not speak Mandarin, an artificially created environment is unreal and difficult to sustain.

We could introduce more immersion courses or exchange programmes to allow more students to spend, say, a month, in China and this will undoubtedly improve their grasp of the language in its natural environment. Even if their proficiency degrades after they return to Singapore, the immersion experience would have strengthened their foundation permanently. This is of course costly and needs to be considered carefully.

The Ministry could also encourage schools to introduce a Chinese newsletter where students can contribute their compositions to be published. It could also include contributions from teachers on tips on Chinese Language, as well as language puzzles and quizzes, to make it interesting.

Occasionally, we could also organise international competitions in Chinese Language, such as debates, theatrical works, choruses, etc, to create opportunities for our students to interact with Chinese Language students from other countries. This will help level up their standard, help them appreciate the language better and generate greater interest in it.

I believe television programmes could also be one very effective medium to encourage the use of the Chinese Language. Many children and adults watch our television programmes. Unfortunately, there is a lack of good Chinese programmes that are suitable for children. Most of the children channels on the cable are English-based. The most popular local Chinese programmes tend to be the television serials. While some children may watch these programmes, they tend to rely on the English subtitles. Would it not be possible to put in Chinese subtitles in our Chinese serials and even daily news? This would not only help our viewers improve their listening skills, but will also help improve their ability to recognise Chinese characters when they look at the screen. Of course, there are commercial implications that have to be considered.

We need parents' support

Seventh, we need to gain support from the parents. Parents play an important part in the success of these changes too. A recent survey by the Feedback Unit indicates that only 50% of the parents feel that our education system is developing our students to their fullest potential, and only 26% of parents are aware of the desired outcome of our education system. As it is, some parents are already quite confused with the changes in the education landscape over the last few years. These proposed changes in the Chinese Language programme will undoubtedly add to their confusion and anxiety.

However, education is a partnership among the Government, students and parents. If the parents are out of sync with the education policy, we will have a missing link. We must, therefore, take pains to explain our policy changes to the affected parents, so that they will buy into our new approach and become effective partners in our education programme. I hope that when the changes are implemented, the Ministry could produce information memos to explain the impact of these changes and help parents to adapt to the new system.

Parents must also take a positive approach and play a supporting role in their children's education. It is also important for our parents to have realistic expectations of their children. It is natural for parents to wan zi cheng long, ie, expect their children to become a dragon. However, unrealistic expectation will result in unwarranted frustration and demoralisation. While it is good to set a higher target so that our children will be motivated to strive for better performance, we must not be critical or discouraging when they could not achieve the goals we set. Parents must strike a balance between motivating our children and stressing them. This way, learning will be a more pleasant and enriching experience for our children.

Teachers' readiness

Conceptually, the proposed approach to Chinese Language teaching is in the right direction. However, its success depends to a very large extent on the implementation which, in turn, depends critically on the schools and the teachers who will deliver the syllabus. We need to address

three issues with regard to the Chinese Language teachers:

Firstly, are the teachers convinced that the new approach is a better approach?

Secondly, will the teachers be ready to adopt the system?

Thirdly, how do we maintain and improve the quality and quantity of our Chinese language teachers?

I am glad that the Committee has consulted the teachers and principals widely before finalising its recommendations. However, we cannot take it for granted that all teachers will embrace the new approach wholeheartedly. Many of them have been brought up under the old system and they believe in that system absolutely. It is therefore important for the supervisors and principals to spend time and effort to explain these changes to our teachers to ensure that they too are convinced.

Having been convinced, it will need time for the teachers to get familiar with the new approach and be trained to deliver the new syllabus. New teachers joining the service should also be put on a new Chinese programme at the NIE to ensure they are well prepared for the new system when they enter into the service. I would urge the Ministry to work closely with NIE to work out the detailed training and retraining programmes for our Chinese Language teachers to prepare them well.

There is also some concern about the quality of our Chinese Language teachers. The general decline in the standard of Chinese language in our schools also means that the quality of the intake pool of Chinese teachers will suffer. If the quality of our Chinese teachers is limited by the quality of the intake, then we will get caught in yet another vicious circle. Perhaps we could review the intake system for Chinese Language teachers to ensure the quality can be maintained and improved. One way is to recruit directly from the A-level students. We could identify early A-level students who are interested in the Chinese teaching career. We can offer them teaching scholarships and tailor special preparatory courses for them, some of these could even be conducted at the NIE. They could be offered guaranteed places in the NIE as a teaching career, skipping the A-level examinations, similar to the new IP programme. This will help improve the recruitment of quality teachers.

It may also be useful for NIE to tie up with leading universities and institutions in China to allow our teachers to go through an immersion programme in China. For example, they could spend their final year in a Chinese university.

Timing

Ninth, this is with regard to timing. The Minister indicated earlier that the proposed changes will first be tried out on a pilot project in selected schools. It will be fully implemented in 2008 and the examination system will be in place by 2010. It seems a long way to go. I can understand that we need time to iron out the implementation details and to prepare our schools and teachers for these sweeping changes. However, some parents whose children are in the primary school today will be concerned that their children will not benefit from the new system. Worse still, some are concerned that the transition period may be unsettling for their children and will affect their final results.

Perhaps the Ministry can explain clearer the transition arrangement and the effects on the children. This will help assure affected parents that their children's performance and their future will not suffer as a result of the transition.

Tenth, communication. Equally important, Sir, is the communication process. To ensure buy-in by the stakeholders and avoid unnecessary misunderstanding, we have to communicate clearly our intention, help them understand the process and the implications, address their specific concerns and take into account their feedback and suggestions. This way, we will be able to rally support from all the stakeholders to ensure a smooth implementation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, the proposals put forward by the Committee are one giant step in the right direction. To help our children acquire a reasonable level of proficiency in the Chinese Language, we must fine-tune our Chinese Language programme to achieve three objectives:

Firstly, we must create in our children a sustainable interest in the language;

Secondly, we must strengthen their confidence in acquiring and using the language; and

Thirdly, we must motivate them to strive to realise their maximum potential.

As the Minister has said, the success of the proposed changes, however, depends on the implementation process. For this reason, we must prepare all the stakeholders, including the teachers, the students and the parents, so that they are ready for the changes and we are able to reap maximum benefit from it.

Sir, it was reported in yesterday's Straits Times, quoting MP Mr Gan Kim Yong that "Many in the Chinese community are worried that the standard of Chinese might be lowered". I suppose as a result of the implementation of the White Paper on the Chinese Language, I also have that same fear.

Chinese and other foreign languages, Science and Mathematics are all considered "hard" subjects in schools. There is no doubt that the learning of those so-called "hard" subjects need an effort on the part of the students. However hard the educationists tried to water down the contents of those subjects or sugar-coat them to make them more palatable, for a student who wants to master any one of those subjects, there is no running away from the fact that a student has to put in some hard work and a great effort. A good dedicated teacher, of course, will help. Students therefore must not be misled into thinking that they can master the Chinese Language without really putting a sustained effort in it. Therefore, I am afraid that with the introduction of the many new ideas in this Report, to make the learning of Chinese Language more palatable, will certainly not raise the proficiency of the language amongst students generally. I think, more likely, the standards might be lowered.

American educationists, after World War II, enthusiastically tried to sugar-coat the subjects taught in schools. Educational theorists in America in those days thought that by making school subjects more acceptable, the students would be more enthusiastic with their lessons and study more. What really happened was just the opposite. The American schools, in those days, were producing children who were literally illiterates. After leaving school, these children could hardly read or write. The lesson from the failed American experiment is that there is no easy route to teach students to master a language or, for that matter, any other subject. The enthusiastic cooperation of all Chinese Language teachers should be a great help in the teaching of the language. Without the full support of all Chinese Language teachers, the teaching of the Chinese Language in our schools cannot succeed.

The doing away of Chinese Language as a compulsory subject for entrance to our local universities has great adverse effects on teachers teaching the Chinese language in our schools. Once the Chinese Language is taken off as a compulsory subject for entrance to local universities, its importance is downgraded. The standing of Chinese Language teachers in the schools is also lowered. Chinese Language teachers, as a result, feel very demoralised. I think that their morale should be restored. This can be done by changing the policy and once more make Chinese a compulsory subject for entrance to local universities and, at the same time, help to keep the standard of Chinese up in our schools.

Of course, some parents would feel very unhappy. They would complain, "Why should our children be kept out of the local universities just because they cannot pass their Chinese?" For such cases, I would say, "Make the students stay one year back and master their Chinese Language". I am certain that after staying back one year, every JC student, worth his salt, can get a credit in the Chinese Language. The sacrifice of one year in the life of a student is really nothing and parents should not complain too much about it. Think of the consequences. If parents do not support the compulsory passing of the Chinese Language to gain entry into the local university, it may mean the failure of the bilingual policy and the ultimate loss of our mother tongue as a second language.

I support the bilingual policy. I accept English as a working language in Singapore and, at the same time, accept that each ethnic group should study its own mother tongue. We are Asians and we should study our own language, other than the English Language, so that we can identify ourselves and be confident of who we really are.

But in the Singapore context, however, the reality is that we are an open cosmopolitan country with massive influences from the West. Our markets are flooded with Western goods, books, magazines, films on television and in the theatres, music and Western lifestyles. We are bombarded unabated with Western influences all the time. No wonder our people are succumbing to Western influence. For example, spoken English has increased among Primary One students. The number of Chinese students entering Primary One who speak predominantly English Language at home has risen from 36% in 1994 to 50% this year, a 14% jump in 10 years. I hope Singapore can resist populist demands and hold firm its bilingual policy and take all steps to make it work.

In this vein, I cannot support the recommendations of this Report because these recommendations water down the contents of the curriculum and, at the same time, sugar-coat it to make the Chinese Language more attractive to students but does not increase proficiency in the language. I would recommend to the Minister to restore Chinese Language as a compulsory subject for entry into our local universities with the view to increase proficiency of the language.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this motion. Last night, I spent a few hours writing the text for my speech today. However, this morning, I have decided not to use the text because I am not going to talk about big principles. I do not want to repeat the recommendations in the Report. I just want to speak from my heart - my own feelings and about the future of my children.

First of all, I would like to declare my interest. My children are completing Primary Two and Primary Three this year. At home, we do not speak Mandarin because my wife grew up overseas and she did not have the opportunity to learn Chinese. That is why at home, we do not speak Mandarin. But my children are doing pretty well in their Chinese Language. They are among the top students in their respective Chinese classes.

I support this motion not just for the interest of my children but for the interest of Singapore. Afterwards, I will explain why I feel that this new direction will be able to make the learning of Chinese better in Singapore. I am not here to uphold the Chinese culture but to maintain the traditional values in Singapore. Singapore is a small country. We have about 75% of our population who are Chinese. Even if every one of our Chinese Singaporeans is proficient in Mandarin, we are not able to uphold the Chinese civilisation. China has such a long history, and it does not need us to uphold its language and culture. We want to maintain the values of Singapore.

Why is the learning of Chinese so important to me and why do I hope that my children could be effectively bilingual in Chinese and English? They are still young but I have been telling them, "You must use Chinese as your basic language and use English as your tool, with Singapore as your root and the world is yours." Because I feel that the two languages - Chinese and English - have their own advantages. The Chinese Language and culture are good when dealing with people, and I feel that the traditional Chinese values are good. But when you are dealing with things, it may be difficult if you were to just use Chinese alone.

English is a very practical language. It is good for management, good for dealing with things. So if we were to use Chinese and English together, you have the best of both worlds when dealing with people and things.

Singapore is a multi-racial society. Although English is our main administrative language, we are after all Chinese, Indians or Malays. Our culture is closer to the Asian culture. We are closer to the Asian values, and it is also easier for us to absorb the essence of the Asian languages.

Although some people have opined that you do not need to use your mother tongue language to impart your traditional values to the younger generation, you can also use English or other languages to transmit the Confucian philosophy, I am sure by so doing you will miss some of the essence of these teachings. Some people bid thousands of dollars for the original manuscript of D H Lawrence's work because, more often than not, when it comes to publication, the published book would have been edited and not quite his original version. So I think if you want to learn Chinese culture and Confucian teachings, it is best that you learn them using the original language rather than the translated version.

In Singapore, if we want to survive, we have to hold on to the Chinese language and also be proficient in English as well. Many parents who are educated in Chinese felt that this round of reform to the Chinese Language curriculum and pedagogy will lower the standard of Chinese in Singapore. My view is this. If my children have the competency to learn just one language, then they should learn English. If they have no choice, then they will have to sacrifice Chinese. However, given a chance to learn both the languages, even if they are not very good at the second language, they should at least possess the skill to listen, to speak and to read in the Chinese language, and strive to attain a certain standard in it.

Why is it that we have to learn English and not just Singlish? Because the whole world is learning English. It is a language for science, medicine, business. Whether you are an African, Egyptian, Japanese, Chinese, French, German, you have to communicate through English. The Internet is an important medium. Everyone has to use English. Of course, we have other nets where other languages could be used but, in communication, you still need to have a common language - English. So every Singapore student must make a clear choice. You must master your English.

However, we must not forget our roots. We must also do our best to learn our mother tongue. For the ethnic Chinese, we must learn Chinese. Of course, some children feel that they are more attached to the Malay language and they want to learn it. This is a personal choice. But for me, my children must learn Chinese as a mother tongue language.

To learn the mother tongue language and to learn Chinese is not easy in Singapore because, as my parliamentary colleague, the Chairman of the GPC for Education has said, we are short of materials for the learning of Chinese. I went around looking for materials for my son and those available are very boring. I went to the library and the materials there were either too simple or too profound. Maybe in Singapore there is no such market. I went to China and I bought some children's books. The language is too difficult. For the primary school students in Singapore, they are unable to understand these books, and that is why they turn to English books. I hope that the Ministry of Education would accept Mr Gan's suggestion to work on producing more suitable Chinese teaching materials in Singapore.

Just now, I said that we should use Chinese as the foundation and English as our tool, and with Singapore as our root. We cannot deny that Singapore is a small nation. Maybe later on in life, our children may have to go overseas to study or to work and absorb more experience and eventually come back to Singapore and take roots here. When they are overseas, they have to use English. But if they have Chinese in them, their contributions to the world will be greater.

Recently, I met a retired lady and I asked her about her children. She said that her son was working in New York. After his studies, the people in New York employed him. I asked her whether her son is working in the US. She said, "No, the company has sent him to Shanghai." Although there are many colleagues in the company who came from Hong Kong and are effectively bilingual, this American company preferred to have someone who knows both English and Chinese, but not too close to mainland China. This is to say that Singaporeans can play a very important role. If this lady's son does not know Chinese, I am sure his contribution to the company will not be so great.

On this new direction for the teaching of the Chinese language, I feel that it is very encouraging. We have to tailor the teaching to suit the different abilities of the children. Depending on their ability, and depending on their progress, we customise the curriculum so that it will fit their aptitude, and see to it that they go to their final point of destination. It is like the same bus that ferries the different children to different destinations. Some may reach their destination first, some later, but eventually all would reach home. Some students want to learn and master the Chinese Language because they like the Chinese literature and culture, and do so because of the needs in their work, their communications and some perhaps for political reasons.

At the moment, our present generation is not doing too badly. Minister Mentor said that we have lost one generation of students. I think the problem is not that serious. Now, our students could generally listen, speak and read Chinese reasonably well, with some having attained better skill in writing. But, what is lacking among our young people is the passion for Chinese. Most students learn the language, sit for the examination, pass it and then throw their books aside, or even burn them. They treat Chinese just as an examination subject. They have no passion for it. Worse still, they feel disgusted with Chinese. They just hate Chinese. So we have to change such a trend.

Our bilingual strategy has been in place for quite a long time. I was not particularly influenced because I belong to the earlier generation of students. Had I come under the bilingual system, I may be able to read and write better in Chinese and English. Although the bilingual policy has not changed, we have to make some fine-tuning. I feel that under the new system, my children will be able to reach further destination and perhaps they will learn to love Chinese.

Just now, Mr Gan mentioned that some people may be afraid, and even Mr Chiam See Tong has mentioned that this new policy may lower the standard of Chinese in Singapore. Some extremists may say that the Government is stabbing the Chinese language at the back once again. I do not think so.

My father came here from Shanghai, China, to earn a living. He sent me to an English school. Why? Because during the colonial days, job opportunities were rare, so parents sent their children to English schools in order that it may be easier for them to get a job later on. The Government then did not encourage parents to send their children to the English schools. But the parents willingly made the choice. By the 1970s, enrolment in the Nanyang University was dwindling. Fortunately, we started the SAP schools to maintain at least a group of students who were given the opportunity to sustain their interest in learning Chinese at a higher level. If the Government did not have this bilingual policy and the subsequent fine-tuning thereof, then I believe many Singapore parents would simply take their children off from the learning of Chinese, and even pressurise the Government to let them abandon the learning of Chinese.

I remember that when I was a boy, the Government was always encouraging students to learn Chinese. Let me say something from the bottom of my heart. In the early days, many people said that Minister Mentor was the one who killed the Chinese language in Singapore. But, let us just take a look at what he preached and what he practised. As a parent, he sent all his three children to traditional Chinese schools so that they could learn Chinese. For a purely English-educated parent to send his children to pure Chinese schools, Minister Mentor was really a remarkable exception. His action spoke loud and clear of his intention to promote and not depress the teaching and learning of the Chinese language in Singapore. Subsequently, he promoted the bilingual policy in schools so that more English educated parents were willing to have their children learn and speak Chinese. For this, we should be grateful to him.

Today, I choose to speak in Mandarin, because from my conversation with many of my friends, I could feel that English-educated parents are more willing to accept this reform. But the Chinese-educated parents are sceptical. They need to be given more assurance. As it is said, "It takes 10 years to grow a tree, but 100 years to cultivate a man." So with the implementation of this reform, we could only see the results maybe 10-20 years later. But I firmly believe that if we allow our children to learn according to their own pace, even if they may not be able to master many proverbs or classical poems, so long as they have this interest in the language, they will be able to build on that foundation and to learn more. But if we turn them off and they do not have this interest for Chinese, then we are actually the killer of the Chinese Language here. There are some Chinese-educated parents who remarked, "Just listen and then speak later, or recognise the characters first and then write later, it would take a very long time for them to master the language!"

A child from a Chinese-speaking background would have listened to Chinese for six or seven years by the time he goes to Primary One. However, for children coming from English-speaking background, just listening and speaking alone is already very difficult. So, if you give them just two years in Primary One and Two, and you want them to be familar with all these sounds and tones of the Chinese Language, it is not easy.

Some 20 years ago, I went to China and was received by members of the Youth Group of the Communist Party of China. At a dinner, a friend from Hong Kong wanted to have a glass of beer and he spoke to the waitress in heavily Cantonese-accented Mandarin, "Xiao Jia, I want bi jiao" The waitress thought he wanted shui jiao (dumpling). She said, "We have all kinds of shui jiao (dumplings) but no bi jiao!" I asked him what he wanted, and he said that he just wanted a beer. So I told the lady that what he wanted was pi jiu ( beer). The waitress said, "Pi Jiu? Why did you say bi jiao, when you wanted pi jiu?" Even Chinese from different areas have difficulty in the pronunciation. In Singapore, we do not have this very strong native accent when we speak Mandarin.

Recently, when I was in Beijing, a friend told me a joke. A southerner went to a Beijing dumpling restaurant and he ordered some dumplings. He asked the waitress how much it cost for a bowl of dumplings. However, instead of saying " Shui2 jiao3 yi wan duoshao qian?" he pronounced it as " Shui4 jiao4 yi wan duoshao qian." The intonation was wrong and it sounded as though he was asking the waitress "How much for sleeping one night (with him)?" The waitress was very angry because she thought the southerner was trying to be funny with her. She stared at him and shouted " liu mang!" (hooligan). But the southerner thought she said, "Liu mao" (60 cents). He immediately replied, "wo yao liang wan." (I want two bowls). The waitress thought he meant "I want two nights." She was so angry that she gave the young southerner two slaps on his face. So, even with the right sound, with a twist of the intonation, the meaning could turn out to be entirely different.

So, I think just listening and speaking without writing is difficult enough. Mispronunciation would lead to a lot of misunderstanding. I do not pronounce very well and very often, I pronounce wrongly. Many Singapore Chinese have this problem too. They go to Beijing and sometimes get into trouble because of their mispronunciation. So I think it is good that we have to learn first by listening and then speaking, and first recognising the characters and then writing. But there should not be too big a gap in between; otherwise the students may have difficulty connecting the recognition to the writing. Of course, writing is more difficult. For me, personally, I find it is a very painful ordeal to write in Chinese. Although I passed my 'O' level, the standard then was much lower than what it is now. But now, we have the Chinese Star software, we have electronic dictionaries and various types of software to help us in the writing of Chinese. Of course, the dictionary cannot replace us. We must be able to write physically some Chinese characters on our own.

Just now, the Minister mentioned that under the new system, the Committee is recommending that we may not have to memorise a specific number of characters but it hinted that we should learn at least 1,300 characters and to be able to read 95% of the Chinese newspaper. But for the rest of the 5%, they can use the electronic dictionary to check the words. It may take a bit more time, but it is still worth it. So, I think, if we make some effort, we should be able to fulfil this requirement.

Many English-educated students have great difficulty during the first few months when they go to China. But after six months or one year, they are familiar with the sounds and tones of Mandarin as spoken there. Although their pronunciation may not be perfect, they learn well because they are close to the people in Beijing. So there, they have the environment. But, in Singapore, we do not have the environment. So, if we were to send our Singapore children to China for, say, a few weeks each year, I am sure their Chinese would improved tremendously.

Finally, there are two things in life that are most precious to us. Firstly, what you do not get; and secondly, what you have lost. If we have gotten it and lost it, then I think it is very regrettable.

There is another thing which I left out just now - values. It is not just how we deal with one another. It also concerns the survival of a nation. China has a civilisation that lasted more than 5,000 years and a recorded history of about 2,000 years. During this long period of time, China went through various wars, chaos and calamities. But 5,000 years later, it is still surviving and it is now picking up. This dragon has woken up! Why is it that China can survive all these years? I think it is because they have very strong values that enable them to counter all the difficulties. The Manchurians conquered China for almost 200 years but they were not able to replace the Han language with their own. On the other hand, they have converged into the Han culture and they have embraced the Confucian teachings as they feel that the Confucian teachings are good for them. So, 5,000 years is quite a long period of time. Many civilisations were already lost. In Latin America and Africa, some ancient civilisations are already not in existence. For a society to survive such a long period of time, there must be many good things we can learn from them. We should use the Chinese culture and civilisation to complement our culture here.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that this Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Reform will enthuse our children in learning the Chinese Language so that they will develop an abiding interest in the language and culture well after leaving school, and enjoy it for the rest of their lives.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today I am going to speak in my mother tongue for the first time in Parliament. I must confess that this is not going to be easy, but I think I should set an example.

I was born in a Peranakan family and am English-educated. Whether at home, in school or at work, I do not have the benefit of a Chinese-speaking environment, as many of our children do not have today. However, when I was young, eager for me to learn my mother tongue, my father bought many children's books and magazines for us to learn Chinese. Under his influence, I developed a love for the reading of Chinese books. As the saying goes, "If there is a will, there is a way". The learning of a language requires grit and determination to succeed. For us to master the use of the Chinese Language, we need the support of our family and a conducive environment in society. We have also learned from history that if we do not maintain our mother tongue language, it would eventually be eroded. I have not been speaking Chinese actively for almost 17 years, and now I find that picking it up again is not easy, but I will try.

The economic development in the Asia-Pacific region is a force to reckon with. Singapore's bilingual policy has given us a distinct advantage, particularly with the emergence of the economies of China and India. However, if one knows a language alone without understanding the culture, one would not be able to fully appreciate the profound subtlety of the language and its implications. I would like to share a joke with you and think over some profound meanings behind it. At a dinner with some Shanghai counterparts, a Singaporean was boasting that he was going to invest S$5 million to develop a piece of land in Pudong, Shanghai. A Chinese businessman at the table shook his head, chewed on his sesame biscuit nonchalantly and said, "zhima luidou!" (literally: sesame and green bean). On hearing that, our Singaporean businessman responded, "Oh, zhima (sesame), very delicious!". The Singaporean did not know that this Chinese man was actually laughing at him. Zhima luidou in Chinese simply means "chicken feed or no big deal!". He knew the language but did not appreciate the intricacies behind it.

In Sunzi's Art of War, Sunzi Bingfa, there is "Zhi ji zhi bi, bai zhan budai" (Know your enemy as you know yourself, then you can fight a hundred battles with no fear of defeat). We should better understand a language and its culture if we want to seize the opportunities of Asian economic development, derive the economic benefits, and maintain the dignity of our nation. Therefore, Singapore must always maintain our competitive edge by being bilingual and bicultural.

At present, our bilingual advantage is challenged: the lack of mother tongue speaking environment, shortage of mother tongue language teachers, outdated teaching methods, and the impact of the western cultures and values... these challenges have affected the enthusiasm of our students in the learning of the mother tongue language and culture. These challenges are similarly faced by our Malay and Indian population as well. Hence, the proposed reform of the teaching of our mother tongue is urgent. These recommendations in the White Paper will help keep pace with demands of the times. Some recommendations are also applicable to the teaching of Malay and Tamil mother tongue languages. Obviously, any good recommendations would have to be accompanied by proper and strategic implementation, before we can see the desired results.

Some of the proposed changes are revolutionary and some people are worried that the changes may result in a lowering of the standard of mother tongue. I would like to give my views on two aspects. First, some technical factors (relating to teaching methods) that impact the success of the proposed changes, and second, the implications of bilingualism to our culture and social values.

First of all, learning mother language must be continuous and consistent. There is a fable about a little bear picking up maize in the field. The moment he picked up a new one, he would throw away the old one. After a hard day's work, he went home with just one piece of maize in his hand. This moral of the story is that continuity and consistency is crucial in our mother tongue language learning process. Will our students learn new things but forget what they have learned in the past, leading to a lowering of linguistic standards? How can we help those who are interested in the subject matter to keep up with or even pursue the use of their mother tongue? Like myself, I have not been using Chinese actively for the past 17 years. It is regrettable that I have lost many of the Chinese words and phrases that I have learned before. Hence a systematic pedagogy is critical to building and sustaining the students' interest in the language.

Secondly, students need a solid foundation in learning a language. China implemented the "Recognise first, Write later" method of teaching Chinese language, which worked well. In comparison, the Chinese students have an overall, ie, 100% Chinese learning environment. But in Singapore, only 50% of our students may speak Mandarin at home. There are also few public signages in Mandarin, contributing to the lack of an overall learning environment. As such, the four basic skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing will continue to be critical in learning a language. With the reforms to make language learning easier, should students continue to leverage on such traditional techniques as repeatedly reviewing the Chinese words and mastering it through constant exposure? In the education reforms to 'teach less, learn more', we must avoid giving students the wrong impression that the Chinese characters are so simple that we do not need to learn to write them, and that we can simply rely on a dictionary or technology like pressing a few buttons on the computer or SMS to recall all the Chinese words. Students should be given a solid foundation in the learning of the Chinese alphabets/characters. To this end, both teachers and students should make joint efforts in having a deeper understanding of the language. Take teaching homonymic characters as an example: the pronunciation nao in fan nao (vexed or worried) and tou nao (brain) are different. If the teacher points out that fan nao refers to issues of the heart while tou nao refers to the brain, then it is obvious that the nao in "fun nao" goes with xin (heart) radical while the nao in "tou nao" follows rou (flesh or human organ) radical. This way, students can quickly grasp the origins and meanings of the characters and simultaneously appreciate the intricacies of similar words in an interesting way.

Thirdly, the teaching method should be flexible and state-of-the-art. A few months ago, when I was in Beijing, I went to a Chinese arts and calligraphy shop to make four seals. Given that this is a traditional handicraft, I thought it would take some time before the master craftsman could successfully engrave the intricate designs. But low and behold, the master revealed a computer and a laser printer and to my surprise, created the desired designs on screen and in a few minutes, completed the engravings with the help of hi-technology. The finished products were no less beautiful than handmade works of art. I was enlightened. China, the custodian of an ancient civilisation, has already caught up and embraces modern technology. Why is modern Singapore still clinging onto old methodologies? This experience created a paradigm shift in me. It is time for us to move with the times too. We can explore using technology, computer and IT to help our students with the learning of the Chinese Language so that we can get twice result with half the effort. We should generate rather than kill the interest of the students if we insist that they just stare at these very dry and boring characters. In addition, a picture speaks a thousand words. Teaching via pictorial representation of characters (after all, Chinese is a pictorial language) can create visual impact which helps students better learn the language. For example, if we look at a picture of the legend of the eight fairies crossing the sea, each one displaying their extraordinary skills, the visual impact can definitely leave a deeper impression than just eight Chinese characters "ba xian guo hai, ge xian shen tong" do. Hence, I support the use of new technology and methodologies in language teaching. However, I would like to caution that not every student or family can afford such technology, and I would urge the Ministry of Education to pay particular attention to leveling the playing field, look into ways to help those students who could not afford to buy computers, and ensure that these students are not in any way handicapped. The schools should give them an equal chance of learning. At the same time, we need to ensure that students do not become addicted to the computer and computer games, thereby erode their interest in language books.

In addition, bilingual teaching method must be executed appropriately so as to avoid counter-effects. Some students in China use Chinese to learn English inappropriately. For example, for the word "tooth", they would write the Chinese characters du zi (means "abdomen") beside it. Another example is that the Chinese would normally say, "na li, na li!" to express "don't mention it" when they are praised. Some Chinese students directly translated "na li, na li" to "where, where" based on its literal meaning, causing the foreigner to misinterpret that the Chinese was asking him specifically what he was praising him for! Will our students make similar mistakes? I once heard a student who translated the English sentence "I want you to look good" as "wo yao ni hao kan!" which in Chinese means, "I will put you on the spot!", which perfectly contradicts his intentions, leading to unnecessary misunderstandings. These jokes remind us that the teaching pedagogy of language must be apt, and it is necessary to expose students to the language environment so as to gradually reduce the reliance on the English Language crutch to learn Chinese.

Fourthly, the passion and enthusiasm of the institutions, society, teachers and students towards the learning of a mother language is critical to the success of the White Paper. I am glad to learn that 90% of our Chinese students and parents feel that it is important to learn Chinese. This alone would promote the success of the proposed changes. We should move with the tide and encourage the parents and the students to change their current mindsets in the learning of the mother tongue and culture. Given that the family is the basic learning environment, parents can use Mandarin more often at home, purchase Chinese magazines or software, and encourage their children to read Chinese books and watch Chinese programmes, or even SMS (short message system) in Mandarin. Parents may also learn Chinese together with their children, help each other and through sharing, improve the relationship between the parents and their children.

Next, teachers and students should enhance their relationships. To some students, the moment they look at their Chinese teachers, the thought of spelling, dictation and memorising of passages immediately come to mind. Some students even create graffiti of their teachers as ugly figures, to express their unhappiness and fear. If students do not like the teachers, and stay away from the teachers, how can we imagine they would like learning Chinese? This would adversely affect their interests to learn the language and culture. The reverse is also true. Hence it is important for teachers to build a good rapport with their students, thereby influencing their passion in learning. In fact, we have many experienced and passionate Chinese teachers who have spent their entire life teaching the Chinese Language. Many may be retiring or have retired. The Ministry of Education may consider employing them on a part-time or ad-hoc basis, so that they could continue to contribute in the teaching of the Chinese Language and, at the same time, help to build up a pool of passionate Chinese teachers.

Next, I would like to highlight the "Immersion Programmes" for its effectiveness in building up students' interests in the language and culture. Many students went to China on immersion courses. It was only after the trips that students learn about traditional items like "barns", "washing tablets", "stone mills" and "spinning wheels", etc. Through exchange and participation with the locals, Singapore students and teachers can better learn the traditions, culture and language, and simultaneously build better rapport. Since we also have a number of Chinese students in Singapore, perhaps we can also organise some sorts of summer camp or learning camp in Singapore, along the lines of "Singapore - China youths hand in hand toward a prosperous Asia" or "a prosperous future", so that our students and students from China in Singapore can learn from one another.

In addition, the Government and the Chinese community should enhance the importance of the bilingual and bicultural talents among us. "Ren ren wei xian" (ie, meritocracy) is a traditional Confucian value, and is what our society practices. With the emergence of the Chinese economy, bilingual and bicultural talents will gain importance and take on increased roles in our nation's progress. Hence it is urgent for us to cultivate more such talents and accord them their due respect and esteem. A high level, high quality committee comprising the institutions, community and educationists could also be formed to track the timeliness and appropriateness of our policies against the local and overseas trend, as well as feedback from our people on the Chinese pedagogy.

Now, let me move onto the second part of my speech, on the impact of bilingualism on our culture and values. What impact would this reform have on our society? Some people suggest metaphorically that culture is the pillar of a bridge while language is the bridge itself. If so, let me add that the societal value system and cultural intricacies would be its consequential expressions of art. This bilingual bridge is thus the link between the (ideas and relationships of) east and the west, and our bilingual policy would be the key to maintain our competitive edge. Corollary, the government is likened to be the designer of this bridge, while teachers are the architects of human's spirit-all involved in the critical task of building up our bilingual-bicultural talents. Our bilingualism is not merely a tool for economic exchanges, but also is rooted on Singapore's national identity and culture. What kind of impact will the reform bring to our society? Let us take music as an analogy. We can divide music broadly into two categories: one category refers to the highest echelon of music appreciation - classical music and the operas. It is like the pristine bilingual experts such as the educationists, writers, translators, diplomats, etc, that we want to cultivate. Such talents are the crème de la crème, and are few in numbers. The other category is like popular music - pop or folk songs, and even tunes heard at markets and common places. This is like the general talents who are able to communicate in two languages - the more, the better. Like songs that can influence one's thoughts, the changes in the learning of language can impact on our cultural development. Therefore, it is essential to seize this opportunity to enrich our bilingual-cultural soil, so as to nurture our younger generation into a strong and healthy lot that bears fruits for our nation.

Secondly, I would suggest that we instill more mother tongue culture in the teaching materials. The famous passage entitled, "Bei Ying" (literally translated as 'rear or back view') by Zhu Ziqing, is a very good example. While showcasing the works of Zhu Ziqing, it brings out the theme of "eternal love" in the 5,000 years of civilisation of China through "viewing father from his behind". From Zhu's unadorned language used in the text, students can learn to appreciate family values like "blood is thicker than water" and "implicit love" between the father and the son. The story suggests that when one meets with challenges, the fatherly love can support and give one the strength to surmount all the difficulties. Students may learn about parental love for them and at the same time, when extrapolated to a macro level, it can also symbolise the love between a citizen and his/her nation, and can encourage patriotism.

Thirdly, bilingual-bicultural teaching can positively influence the value system of our youths. Recently, I have been involved in some youth development plans. I noticed that some young people seem to lack passion for society and a sense of belonging. In fact, juvenile delinquency appears to be on the rise and youths' value system appears challenged. Why is it so? Is this a result of rapid changes to social institutions, like the woes of double income family leading to latchkey kids losing a sense of aspiration and belonging? And some are just floating aimlessly with the time? I hope that the proposed reform can seize the opportunity to include materials to inculcate our culture, value system and national identity in our youths. A friend in China told me that their children started learning this poem "Shaoxiao li jia, lao da huan; xianying wu gai bin mao shuai" from an early age. It describes a person who was away from his homeland for many years, returning to his beloved hometown in his old age. Obviously much has changed and even though the village children did not know him, they could recognise him as a returner, as they recognise his local accent which remained unchanged. Similarly in Singapore, we have successful talents studying or working overseas. Some may eventually elect to come home to Singapore to contribute to the development of our country. I think we should inculcate in our youths a sense of belonging and patriotism from young, beyond words but cultivate it in a person's paradigm and world view, so that as more goes overseas, more will return home to contribute to our nation. There are many such values and classic stories within our Chinese, Malay and Indian society, which could be used to enhance this sense of patriotism and rootedness in one's country. We should not forget this point in our curriculum and pedagogy reform.

Last but not the least; change comes at a price. The proposed change is an ongoing effort which will inevitably meet with challenges and pain in the process. This is particularly so in the interim periods. We will need to surmount the obstacles as we progress. Meanwhile, I hope that the Ministry of Education will pay special attention and help to the following groups of people who may be adversely affected by the proposed changes:

the less well endowed who lack resources and may not have computers at home;

those who have a keen interest in learning higher Chinese, and those who have just left the schools and polytechnics and thereby lost the chance to further their language passion; and

those who are caught in transition from the old to the new education systems.

Special help should be rendered, providing them with the opportunity, so that they will not be left behind and become the victims of this curriculum and pedagogy reform. Finally, let us call on all our stakeholders - students, parents, educators, community, Government and the Singapore society at large to join hands in a united effort to work towards a successful reform in the teaching of Chinese Language.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the subject of teaching the Chinese Language to our young Singaporeans. I must applaud the Ministry of Education's head-on approach and handling of this matter.

Indeed, learning a language should not be reduced to merely a school-taught subject that requires mugging and a pass, and after school the language is not put to much practice. A language can only be said to be alive when its learners speak it rather fluently in a natural setting. Practice is the key word here. In fact, when a language is embraced wholeheartedly, it will allow its students to fully appreciate its accompanying culture. We all agree that we cannot discard the complex relationship between language and culture. I hope we do not want to learn the language only to ride on the wave of the thriving Chinese economy. It has to be more than about dollars and cents.

Establishing the correct attitude towards our mother tongue must begin from a very young age. Naturally and logically, it should begin at home and through the pre-school. Pre-school education also allows us to inculcate in our children the sense of importance of the mother tongue, and strengthen the emotional link to the language. Speaking and listening skills are, without debate, the fundamentals of mastering any language. We all agree that reading must be introduced at the very early age, while writing can come later. Why do I say this? Because we must be mindful that the basic goal is to get the younger generation to be comfortable with the language so that they are encouraged to communicate with ease. Building an impressive vocabulary and mastering the literary aspect of a language are options open to a specific number who desire them.

Sir, it has also dawned on me, just like Miss Penny Low, that the teaching of mother tongue languages in Singapore, eg, the Malay Language, may also require looking into. Let us be pro-active in this matter. There can only be much to be gained. I am happy that the Ministry has already started working towards achieving similar goals for both Malay and Tamil Language teaching and learning. Just as it has been done for the Chinese Language, the Malay Language teaching would also need to be upgraded and ameliorated to remain relevant to the present context and time. Matters of instruction, techniques and materials used are surely in need of improvement. Lessons can be drawn from the teaching of the Chinese Language experience on the whole, and these must be shared.

As reported in the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee paper, one of our strengths is our multi-lingual ability that allows us to connect with the countries within this region and the world. The bilingual policy of adopting English as the official business language while learning the other mother tongue languages should be continued. Through use of language, Singaporeans will attain a better understanding of its history, civilisation, cultures and traditions. The cultural heritage of each child is very important, and it is essential to know these languages to gain access to the culture and history of Singapore. And, importantly, it provides a unique Singapore identity.

Similar to the Chinese Language, it also makes economic and cultural sense to encourage the learning of the Malay Language, which was the original lingua franca of the archipelago. Apart from Singapore, Bahasa Melayu is widely spoken by the people of Indonesia, Malaysia, southern Thailand, Brunei, Mindanao in the Philippines, Champa of Cambodia, and Vietnam. That is a community of almost 300 million people. Perhaps, Sir, research may reveal to us concerns of the Malay Language community, if any, both perceived and real. Is there any evidence of language shift or a change of attitudes towards the language and the current language ecology, as mentioned by the Minister earlier? Are there any policy implications due to this shift?

Drawing from personal experience when studying the French language, I cannot emphasise enough the importance of practice and being in a conducive environment for one to grasp a new language by leaps and bounds. Speaking a language effortlessly gives us one great confidence level. Only then will love and appreciation for it come naturally. Frustration will then take a back seat.

Perhaps, one of the most innovative ways of learning a second language would be the immersion technique, as mentioned by Mr Gan Kim Yong earlier. Apparently, English education in South Korea is undergoing a revolutionary change, as local governments establish English immersion villages which allow students to develop their language skills by using only English in an environment similar to that of a real English-speaking community. In the villages, people would be given English names and use foreign currencies to purchase goods. Hotels, post offices and other facilities would be run in a similar way as in the English-speaking countries, giving visitors the opportunity to learn more about foreign cultures. The Japanese are impressed and might even follow suit. Whether this is the best way to learn a language is still debatable. But the point that I am making here is that there are many views, perspectives, methodologies to learning a language out there, something for all of us to think about.

Sir, although I commend the Ministry for its effort, I am more concerned with the impact that these changes will have on the community and the society at large. We are aware how parents in Singapore are always worried about the criteria of admission to schools, course, universities and, eventually, good careers and jobs. I think the perennial question is: how does this curriculum review and change affect their children's options and changes of admission to the academic places or even career choices?

In this respect, Sir, I certainly do not agree with the suggestion put forward by Mr Chiam to make mother tongue as a criterion for admission to university. We have to be realistic in our expectations on learning a language, and should not move backwards to the time when a number of our young were deprived of university education because of their weakness in the mother tongue.

With this, Sir, I hope the Ministry can address some of the issues that I have raised. I support the motion.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.54 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although I am wearing a Chinese jacket from Beijing, I am not speaking in Mandarin.

I rise to support the White Paper, especially with its emphasis on fluency and confidence in speaking, listening and reading. This is the way ahead for the learning of the Chinese Language and I want to congratulate the Ministry for not only recognising the problem but in being bold enough to get to the root cause of the issue to tackle it. The fact that even in China, where Mandarin is the main language, they accepted that the better way to teach the language was by helping the students to recognise the words first and keep the writing to the later part of the learning programme.

The importance of learning the Chinese Language is often not appreciated until the students grow up and join the ranks of the working population. I have three concerns.

The first concern is implementation in 2008. It is a good start that we first tackle how we can help our students to master the language. We recognise that there is a deep problem in our learning of the Chinese Language. But if this is the case, I do not understand why the Government is not seeking to expedite the implementation of the Review Committee's recommendations, especially the key features of the revamp. We are now going into 2005 and why do we need to wait until 2008, which is another good four years, before introducing these recommendations. Since we have recognised that the cultivating of learning interest from young is a good start, students should be allowed to learn at their own pace as quickly as possible. There may not be a total or ideal change in the way that the language is cultivated, but the phased approach, implemented with the end objectives in mind, will certainly be helpful for the present students in the lower primary. We should strive to provide every student the opportunity of a good grounding in the Chinese Language as soon as possible, once the principles and recommendations of the revamped curriculum have been accepted after this vigorous debate.

I need to declare my interest. I am an interested mother as my youngest child is now in Primary One. I have anticipated the English-speaking environment that he would grow up in and thus I provided him the Chinese learning environment during his kindergarten years by enrolling him in a neighbourhood kindergarten. Here, most of his kindergarten classmates speak Chinese at home. He is now in a SAP school. Although with additional periods of Chinese lessons, unfortunately, most of the children are from the English-speaking homes. The speaking of English is predominantly used in the school and I found that for his final year examination results, his Chinese grades have already been lowered. Sooner or later, his interest in learning the language would wane if he does not see the need to continue to speak the Chinese Language in the school environment. He would have lost the advantage that he had in his kindergarten years.

I am urging the Ministry to expedite the implementation since it has recognised that this is the problem in the learning of the language. Yet, a child will not be able to benefit from the Review Committee's recommendations until he is about Primary Four or Five. By then, many would suffer the existing fate of many children hating to learn the language by this age. The sooner we fix the problem, the better it is for the future. Human resources are our only asset. If we have to wait four good years, this may result in unnecessary casualties for those who are struggling with the Chinese Language under the current system of learning. What good is a discovery if it is not widely available for everyone to benefit?

The second concern is to encourage a learning environment. There is a need to encourage a learning environment for the child to learn his Chinese Language. A few suggestions have been raised. One, the language ability amongst students from different schools is different. Increase the teaching hours for Chinese in some SAP primary and even SAP secondary schools after understanding the child's background. Before the child enters primary school, a survey should be carried out based on the student's family background, socio-economic status and the language used at home or in the neighbourhood. Principals or teachers should have the flexibility to decide on the amount of time spent in English and Chinese so that students will be able to learn the first and the second language faster. The key to success lies in the motivation and opportunity that one has in learning the second language. Allow these students to learn Chinese at different levels and pace through this flexible system. Use family background, learning ability and interest to distinguish these students.

Teaching of Chinese can be effectively improved by conducting lessons in small groups so that teachers can employ flexible methods for teaching students of different learning abilities. Teachers must be able to distinguish students with different abilities and interest in order to employ different teaching methods as well as to teach at different pace.

Let outstanding teachers teach Chinese and give them a better chance of being promoted as vice-principals or even principals, or be given even Ministry HQ postings. This can indeed encourage teachers to take a serious view of the Chinese Language education and motivate them to take a lead in creating a better learning environment for Chinese in schools, to give students a good grounding in Chinese at primary level and to make them like the language so that they would continue to learn it in future.

At home, we would like to ask the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) to support this call, ie, to encourage Chinese subtitles for our Chinese news so that our children are encouraged to follow the news. I just came back from Beijing and I could follow the Chinese news there because they have Chinese subtitles. But I find it difficult to follow the Chinese news in Singapore because of the speed. I support Mr Gan's earlier proposal to allow more educational programmes for our children, eg, the National Geographic programme to be in Chinese and encourage more good Chinese children programmes for our children.

English will continue to be the dominant language in Singapore. Increasingly, many people understand that learning the Chinese Language is important for Singapore's economic survival too. With the rise of China as an economic power, we know that even non-Chinese have been picking up the language. As students have different learning abilities, we cannot expect to keep on raising the level of Chinese Language education similarly as English at the first language level standard. Most of us who have gone through the bilingual system will realise that, at any one time, one would have mastery of one language. The other language will be learnt, but at a different level of fluency.

To enable the interest and use of the language, it is vital to improve the language environment in schools, families and society. When everyone understands this reality, it will be easier for them to accept the measures proposed by the Education Ministry to improve the teaching of Chinese, including introducing flexibility in teaching methods. Those who need encouragement to learn the language should watch the CCTV's language programme where you can see Caucasian presenters teaching viewers on word vocabulary and sentence structure. A student's command of Chinese is not only due to his ability but also his interest. His interest is, in turn, influenced by his family's background and motivation.

My third concern is the examination structure. I want to dwell on the way our examination is structured. We are too oriented towards the form that we miss the substance. I am glad that the Review Committee will change the way our students are tested and assessed, by moving away from vocabulary and memory, to giving more marks to how they speak and use the language in the right context for the PSLE and 'O' level examinations. What is the use of learning words but you cannot string them together? A proverb or a famous Chinese poem does not make you a Mandarin. In fact, in any language, it is more difficult to use simple words and string them together correctly in order to communicate effectively. Changing the examination format will do just the right thing.

Again, Mr Speaker, why not introduce the whole recommendations altogether at an earlier date? Also, for those who are to be affected by these changes, I feel that the changes in the subject content should take effect as soon as it is practical and be phased in gradually. A reduction in the subject content should not be done suddenly by cutting off the syllabus. This is especially the case for the current cohort of lower primary students if the changes are to be of benefit to them. In fact, it is my view that the current content is too heavy. For example, my youngest son, who has recently completed his final examination, has to learn 60 phrases, some are two words and others are four words, just to take the final Chinese spelling test of 10 phrases. It took both of us, mother and child, two weeks to complete learning the list. However, for the English Language, he is only required to learn 30 of them and to take a test for 10 words. From this, there is little wonder why our children love the English lessons but not the Chinese lessons. The modular syllabus method, as recommended, to allow students to learn at their own pace, is indeed a good idea.

Let me end by sharing three real cases of people who face actual situations relating to their learning of the Chinese Language. The first case is set in a scenario where an international company demands that employees to be posted to their China offices must not only read and write the language, but they must be competent in the language to the extent of reading and understanding the text the way they do in English. Of course, among the first countries that this company turned to for potential candidates are Singapore and Hong Kong. A scholar from Singapore, now in the private sector, has to forgo this posting because of his lack of mastery of the language. The scholar thus lost what is considered a prime posting.

In another instance, another international company was prepared to settle for the second best and sent one of their executives for posting to China. Though his level of understanding of the language was elementary, the result was that the company has to employ a translator to assist him during his posting, and international companies do not always welcome this as they have confidential dealings.

But just learning the language is not enough. So a third Singaporean, a young man in his late-20s, currently working in Fuzhou, China, has discovered the books and literature that he read while in school in Singapore were not sufficient to take him through business and commercial discussions, especially on banking and accounting terminology. Added to this, he discovered that there was a cultural gap in the thinking of a Chinese Singaporean educated in English with that of his Chinese business counterparts. Their approach, their thinking and their interpretation of friendship were different, though both are Chinese. Additionally, there is also the historical gap that the Singaporean gentleman has to read up to get him into a comfort level to court their friendship, in winning the confidence to socialise and do business together.

Hence, the value of learning the Chinese Language and using it confidently is very crucial for our students. It goes back to my earlier argument that we should expedite the implementation of these recommendations and not wait till four years later.

Sir, I hope the Minister will consider this proposal in the implementation of the new teaching programme for the Chinese Language.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the nine recommendations presented by the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Review Committee have won the support and praise from the Chinese community. The recommendation is to use a more flexible modular method and to have a differentiated approach to teach students coming from the Chinese-speaking families and English-speaking families so that they would first learn to speak and listen to Mandarin and then recognise the characters and eventually use the Microsoft Chinese software to write the Chinese characters.

For these recommendations to be successful, there are two very important factors. As stated in the report, the teachers are the key to the implementation of this reform. The Ministry of Education should, first of all, identify a group of Chinese teachers who are enthusiastic, energetic and dedicated, and provide them with the necessary training. They should be kind and affable, have a love for children and could get along well with the students. Only then could they use some lively and interesting methods to teach Chinese and, in turn, the students will be turned on and catch up with the learning. They could also use comics and other supplementary materials to teach the students the traditional culture and values.

I remember when I was in primary school, the teachers used to inculcate in us the traditional values through day-to-day happenings. As a form of respect, we would be taught to greet the teachers whenever we met them by saying, "Good morning, teacher" or "Good afternoon, teacher". To cultivate a sense of responsibility, we were told not to litter, or to spit on the floor. As a courtesy to our classmates, we were told not to tease them or make fun of them. Every Monday, the teacher would nominate a student to go on the stage and tell stories to his classmates. The teacher told us that this was confidence-building. The Chinese traditional values will then be imparted to us, bit by bit.

In my generation, when my mother imparted the traditional traditions to me, it was not in Mandarin but in Hokkien. The older generation used dialects to inculcate in us the traditional values.

This report also recommended that we recruit local graduates, foreign teachers and even retired teachers to reinforce our team of Chinese teachers, and also to provide them with the opportunities to upgrade themselves.

In the trade unions, I had the opportunity to get in touch with some Chinese teachers. In our casual talks, I cannot help getting the impression that our Chinese teachers are being treated as "second class" teachers. They do not get the respect that they deserve and very often they would become the "contractors" for all the extra-curricular activities in the school, like taking the soccer team or basketball team to competitions, hiking, mountain-climbing, etc. One teacher told me this very strange phenomenon of the learning of Chinese by his students. It hurts to divulge it openly but, regrettably, I have to say it. I was told that when the teacher asked her students to bring some homework home to do, one of the students did not do it. When confronted, the student said, "My mother said that if I don't have the time, don't do the Chinese homework." If we want our students to learn Chinese well, I think we need to, first of all, change the mentality of the parents. Many Chinese teachers are afraid of trouble, because if they force the students to do the homework, the next day the parents may write emails and complain to the Ministry of Education, and they will be in trouble.

For the Chinese teachers, I think promotion is just a material reward. To them, the most important thing is the moral support. I hope that the Ministry of Education would not neglect moral support for the Chinese teachers.

Secondly, I feel that the environment is very important in the learning of any language. Take myself, for example. In the 50s, from primary school to secondary school, every year, I had only one English textbook. In my six years in primary school, I spoke only dialects and Mandarin. At home, I spoke only dialects and hardly any Mandarin. While I was at Nanyang University, I learnt a bit more English with one year in the Language Centre, having two lessons a week. Fortunately, we had a foreign professor who taught us political studies in English. All the other subjects were taught in Mandarin. In our campus, we conversed with our classmates either in Mandarin or in dialects. As a result, at the time of my graduation, I could only speak very stiff and far-from-eloquent English. Sir, I am giving this illustration with the hope that our students today will not feel so frustrated as I was when I was learning English in my days, when they learnt Chinese.

I understand that in some schools, Mandarin is being used in the teaching of music, arts and physical education. I think it is very important that schools build up the environment for Mandarin to be spoken, while taking into consideration the feelings of the non-Chinese students.

I think the most important thing is the attitude of the parents. According to a survey by Lianhe Zaobao, about three-quarters of the students indicated that their parents and the schools themselves encouraged the students to learn Chinese. The Straits Times conducted a similar survey which revealed that 87% of the parents feel that their children should learn Chinese. This is very encouraging. Especially in the English-speaking families, we should encourage the children to speak Mandarin among themselves. The parents should allow their children to watch Chinese TV programmes. If they can afford it, they should also support their children by buying some comics and magazines for them to learn more Chinese characters. Encouraging the children to watch TV programmes is an effective means to promote the speaking and listening of Mandarin.

In Singapore, some former Nantah graduates told me that nowadays they habitually tune in to the Phoenix Chinese Channel or the CCTV. Why? Because they told me that the Chinese programmes on our local TV stations are not very good for the children. I do not have time to watch TV at home, but this was the feedback I had from the Chinese-speaking parents in Singapore. I am worried if our younger people watch only the Phoenix Channel or CCTV and not our local TV stations. Of course, the quality of the programmes on Phoenix Channel and CCTV are of better quality, but the values they promote may be quite different from ours. I do not know whether the Ministry of Education would consider investing in some good TV programmes for our local TV stations to telecast, for the benefit of our children, particularly the Chinese children. Otherwise, 10-20 years later, the values of our children would be that of mainland China, and not our own.

For those parents living in HDB estates, they should encourage their children to participate in activities organised by the community centres and the residents committees, because in such gatherings, from my experience, most residents converse in Mandarin. At the same time, we can see some of these innocent children playing and running about and speaking very naturally in Mandarin. The children's programmes in community centres offer a lot of opportunities for the children and their parents to learn to listen to and speak Mandarin. We must admit that most residents in HDB estates are Mandarin-speaking and whenever they meet one another along the corridor, they would greet one another in Mandarin. I feel that the parents play a very important part. They must spontaneously bring their children to these activities so that their children will be able to speak fluent Mandarin. That should not be a problem.

Sir, Minister Mentor Lee promoted the Speak Mandarin Campaign in 1978. Twenty-six years later, we have already seen the results. Although it is not 100%, everywhere in Singapore, we could hear some older generation of Chinese residents speaking in simple Mandarin. This time, with this reform to the curriculum and pedagogy, together with the support of the parents and the concerted efforts of the Chinese community, I do not think we need to wait for another 26 years before our Chinese students could speak fluent Mandarin, listen to Mandarin, read Chinese magazines, watch Chinese TV programmes or surf the Net in Chinese.

If China did not have Deng Xiao Ping to introduce the economic reform and opened up in 1978, China's economy would not be so strong today and there would not be so many Germans and French eager to learn Chinese so that they will not lose the opportunities brought about by the emergence of the Chinese economy.

The ethnic Chinese in Singapore have a lot of similarities in their culture and affinity with China. Therefore, if we have some interesting methods to teach the students to learn Mandarin, I am sure they will be able to master the Chinese Language and benefit from the opportunities brought about by the emergence of the Chinese economy. I hope that our younger generation of Singaporeans would benefit in this respect. However, I read an article in Lianhe Zaobao on 18th November and I felt that it was very regrettable that there are still some people who are ridiculing us that we are using the economic benefits to induce the Chinese Singaporeans to learn the mother tongue and said that we are utilitarians. I do not know what they are thinking.

We are pragmatic people. In the early days of nation building, we depended on international trade. We promoted English education because we needed to master the English language so that we could learn the new technology and management know-how from the West so as to attract foreign companies to come to Singapore to invest and generate more jobs for our people.

Minister Mentor, at that time, asked our Singaporeans not to neglect our mother tongue but we must place emphasis on English. Today, our younger generation is proficient in English. They have this advantage. They are talented in the technology and management fields, and they command a premium wherever they go in this global and knowledge-based economy.

We can see today that Minister Mentor had made the right decision on our education policy. Today, Singapore, with no natural resources, could stand up tall among all the other economies in the world. In those days if we had allowed the Chinese chauvinists to win the day, would we have what we have in Singapore today?

Just now, Mr Chiam See Tong said that he did not agree with this reform and he wanted us to revert to having the results of Chinese Language examination counted as part of the university admission criteria. I am puzzled. Is this the mentality of Mr Chiam See Tong? Does he not know that many highly English educated people have migrated because their children could not be admitted to university because they failed their Chinese paper in the examinations? Why is Mr Chiam See Tong now going the other way and saying that we should revive this requirement of a pass in Chinese Language to be admitted to the university?

I can tell you that in the 1960s, many politicians tried to win votes by playing on the Chinese Language issues. This is very dangerous. Mr Chiam See Tong is not here. I hope that he is not trying to use this to win votes from the Chinese voters. If he thinks this way, it is very stupid of him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, because of my trade union connections, I have the opportunity to meet trade unionists from all over the world. Whenever they talk about Singapore, they would be full of praise for our congestion-free traffic, clean streets, and remarked that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had taken great care of our people in every aspect. I do not know whether they are just flattering us or telling us their real feelings. Whatever it is, it is very comforting to hear that. On one occasion, two foreign friends went to look for me when I was conducting my meet-the-people session and they stayed behind and observed my session. At the end of it, one of them said to me, "It's very strange. Why is it that all these people come to the Government for help when they have difficulties? If the Government has problems, who do they go to?" I was taken by surprise as I did not expect him to ask me such a question. My reply to him was, "If the Government has problems, they will go to the people for help." Until today, I am still wondering if I had given him the correct answer.

Sir, this White Paper has clearly shown the sincerity of the Government to help the Chinese students to master the Chinese Language and to provide opportunities for students with the potential to go further by offering ample opportunities to take Higher Chinese or the China studies courses.

However, to implement these recommendations of the report, we need the support of the Chinese community. So I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to the Chinese community in Singapore. This is the time when the Government needs their help. Please come forward to lend their support so that our younger generation of Singaporeans will benefit from this Chinese Language curriculum and pedagogy reform and master their Chinese.

Sir, I support the motion.

Sir, I speak in support of the proposed review of the Chinese Language curriculum.

Since the inception of our bilingual policy, it has been implemented in schools on the principle that bilingualism is essential to Singapore's survival. As one who had gone through that system, I can attest to the fact that studying Chinese did not come easy to me. Being in an English-stream school, needless to say, lessons, play and socialising were all done in English. As the Report highlighted, and few would disagree, the language spoken at home will feature in how at ease or ill at ease a student is with the language. I speak mainly English and the Cantonese dialect, but am fortunate enough to have had a fair amount of exposure to Mandarin. Mandarin programmes and news broadcasts on TV and radio, and speaking to relatives and elders in Mandarin enabled me to push through and obtain a P3 grade for Chinese at "O" levels. I would like to reiterate that speaking Cantonese at home did take away my opportunity and time to speak and to be exposed to Mandarin.

Sir, during National Service, I spoke more English and learned the Hokkien dialect - I see some smiles from Members of the House who had served National Service - but Mandarin was spoken less. While studying overseas, I was instructed to write home in Chinese so that my mother had an idea of how I was progressing and managing. Well, in my first year, my letters home were usually three to five pages long, consisting of only about 10 Chinese characters: Qin ai de ba ba, ma ma (at the beginning) and at the end, hai er, Zeng. Not good. Coming into contact in class with some students from Taiwan and China afforded me some limited opportunity to speak Mandarin, and subsequent letters home had more Chinese characters and even phrases. I later managed a letter consisting of a couple of short paragraphs in Chinese. I would add that this had to be done with a Chinese dictionary in hand, but oral fluency made it much easier.

In the course of my work today, the daily use of the language helps me regain some fluency. To respond to a question in Chinese, I thought through in Chinese and responded in Mandarin. Without daily use, this would not be possible. So, it was an arduous process for students like me in school, to say the least. However, the system had helped me in good stead in the same breadth. The bilingual policy gave me the grounding to pick up and improve upon my Chinese so that I can converse and interact with native speakers of the language today. Those like myself are fortunate enough to have emerged after our 12 years in school meeting the objectives set out by the bilingual policy. But there are many who just gave up on the language and went overseas to further their education, some never came back. And I am sure Mr Chiam See Tong does not want this to happen. Like, Mr Ong, I am puzzled by Mr Chiam's remarks earlier.

For those who have never gone overseas, they just gave up the university route until a few years ago. Then there were those whose "O" level and "A" level certificates attested to their proficiency, and they entered the university. But these students, and I am not being critical here but merely observing and noting the approach, studied extremely hard, picked questions, memorised essays, be very examination-oriented, just to get into the university. They learned to study smart to get into the university and thereafter stay off the language altogether. So, this experience was very arduous and painful for them and they did not carry on with them an interest in the language and, hence, missed that at work.

Some of these students are the parents of the current cohort of students facing much of the difficulty in CL and, to some extent, ML and TL today. The overlapping factors of an adversity to learning the language, the lack of opportunity to use the language and perhaps the acceleration of western influence and the desire of parents for their children to be proficient in English show up a little disconnect in the CL curriculum.

Sir, the recommendations in the Report to enthuse all CL students as well as to help them develop an abiding interest in the language are steps in the right direction. There is mention of helping students discover the meaning and joy in the learning of CL. As an English-stream student myself, I would like to share with this House an expression. For example, the words leng qi - one of the great inventions over the last 100 years. Leng qi - yi ge ci, liang ge zi (two characters). From leng, you learn about other words: han leng, bing leng, leng dan - all different meanings and pretty close. Han leng (bitter cold), bing leng (icy cold), leng dan (to ignore or to give a person a cold shoulder). You learn about context. So, those are another three words, but six characters in all, from one character of leng, or cold. Then the second character qi, you have qi guan (air hose or air tube), qi hou (the weather), qi lei (to be discouraged). There are another three words and six characters, all from leng qi. Is that not interesting, if I were to ask a child? So, from one word or two characters of "aircondition", we learn so many more words. Perhaps we could introduce such interest in children early. I think that if the children develop an appreciation for the language beyond the very minimum required for them to pass examinations, the likelihood of them using, and thereby developing a fluency of the language, is very high.

This brings me to the proposal to allow students to use aids such as electronic dictionaries. Much as I agree that this particular proposal is a tremendous help to students, I am not sure that we should let students use this device too early in their examinations. Perhaps we should let them use them a little later, maybe in secondary schools. I believe that students must be able to master a reasonable number of characters in their formative years. I am encouraged by the Report that there are new and creative ways to let students develop an interest early. Writers of textbooks and storybooks must be creative, appealing and refreshing in the materials they produce. The combination of reading materials and word list must serve to build a basic grounding that will aid the student in developing an ability enough to ignite his interest and not to overwhelm him instead. I hope that during the implementation, special attention be put in striking the right balance here.

Sir, I would like to suggest that electronic dictionaries be used later, and we still allow for a reformatted examination to test the true ability of a student mastering of the language, with all the implementation that we want to put in place with this changed curriculum. Otherwise, we would not know how the revised curriculum has served us in terms of imbuing the students with the basics. I am convinced that we should begin with anchoring an ability to converse in the language. As previous speakers have mentioned, early exposure via listening and speaking will give the child familiarity in the sounds and the tones of the language. Reading and writing abilities can thus be acquired much easier.

I have already covered the situation of EL-speaking homes and the difficulty faced by students from these families learning CL. What is alarming from the Report is this. MOE's survey found out that 50% of students from CL-speaking homes find it difficult to learn CL and 36% of students from mostly CL-speaking homes find it difficult to learn CL in school. This means that the teaching method or teacher training needs to be looked at. This is the "disconnect" I spoke about earlier. Students speaking CL at home and yet find it difficult to learn CL in school is a curious situation indeed. I venture to say that the standard of CL speaking in our homes may be worth scrutinising. And I think the hon. Member, Mr Ong Ah Heng, has touched on that earlier. There is Singlish, and maybe a form of Singnese might have developed. How often have we heard our young saying, wei me zhe yang. What he actually meant was, wei she me, ni zhe yang; or, shan ge len. It should be san, not shan; ren, not len. Perhaps len came from some influence in speaking the Hokkien dialect as ren is lang. So, speaking of dialects will influence one's ability to speak proper Mandarin.

Sir, I would like to offer my input on the comments of critics saying that our students may not master written communication for mother tongue if this review is adopted. We must weigh this against our success in keeping the language alive, in getting students enthused in learning the language. I have mentioned earlier some other statistics on the difficulty of learning CL at school. 84% of primary school teachers reported that students have difficulty in learning CL in school; and 71% of secondary school teachers have reported the same. If these students become parents of kids, in 10-20 years' time what will happen to the learning of CL in Singapore? I think it is a very dire situation and at the same time, if we juxtapose that to what the Chinese economy will be in 10-20 years' time, that is indeed a sobering thought.

Sir, while we teach mother tongue to our students with different linguistic aptitudes, I would like to caution against creating yet another form of streaming. Students with a lower aptitude for their mother tongue should not be segregated into a linguistic underclass. This is not the intended goal, nor should it become an unintended consequence of this review. Instead, the study of mother tongue is to be made more palatable. We must encourage the students to gain a greater interest in their mother tongue and to use it. For students who may develop their competence further beyond the foundation level at the later stage, the curriculum will provide them every opportunity to do so. While we must aim to give students every opportunity to learn according to their aptitude and pace, we must also caution parents that this is not another race where students would be pitted against each other for the sake of academic achievements. No amount of tuition will make the learning of mother tongue palatable to a student if he is not interested.

By building a love for the language or mother tongue, we would likely have more students who would appreciate the language and who would use it later in life. I am hopeful now, with this review and the implementation of the recommendations accounting for the inputs over the next couple of days in this House, that the bilingual policy will bear fruits.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate on Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy.

It is heartening to note that about 87% of students across the spectrum of home language backgrounds are keen to learn the Chinese Language. It is not so, however, to know that a majority of students do not enjoy learning it although they understand fully how important it can be to learn the language. 71% of students from English-speaking homes find learning the Chinese Language difficult. It is like having to take bitter medicine. Though they know the pill is good for them, it is not something easy to swallow. I welcome this White Paper as it is a new prescription for turning this bitter pill to "Smarties" that are not only palatable but also attractive to the students.

I strongly believe in the importance of Chinese Language in preserving our cultural roots. It is most awkward when one declares that he or she is Chinese ethnically but cannot even speak Chinese. Maybe here, I just like to share my own experience. Where I grew up was a place where we never had a chance to learn Chinese at all, not in school, and at home, we spoke Hokkien. My parents and I were determined that I should learn Chinese and, therefore, I just took Chinese tuition at home. It came in useful when I went overseas. I could write back to my mother in Chinese and now I can speak and give speeches in Chinese in my constituency.

This White Paper aims to engage the interest of students from an early age and hopefully help them develop a love for the language and culture. This will, in turn, help us further strengthen our traditional culture and values.

The right concepts need directions to be adhered to by hundreds of educators in our schools to achieve the goals. The devil will be in the implementation details. My concern is on the task of revamping the old methods and encouraging teachers to switch to the new concepts. Only last week, some Chinese teachers interviewed did not agree on the recommended "Recognise first, write later" method. Their argument against it is that if children are not writing, they are less likely to recognise characters. Another said the numerous changes, and I quote, "may come in a bit too fast for teachers in general". Some of our educators have used the traditional methods for years; will they be willing and are they able to change to a new innovative, fun and not regurgitative method?

Teachers play an important role in enthusing students to like the language. Some teachers have better and more interesting ideas than others in their teaching methods. Their ideas should be tapped and shared with the rest of the teachers in other schools in order to have better uniformity in the standard of delivery. I hope there will be lots of avenues for the educators to share and support one another in the initial stages of implementation. Will the Ministry monitor the situation closely to ensure no lapses in implementation that may disadvantge any group of students?

It is easier and faster to pick up and learn a language at a younger age. We should therefore expose our children to the Chinese Language at as young an age as possible. Having an environment that enhances wide exposure to the language is the key to imbue this culture. Without going overboard, we may like to try the following ideas: have more Chinese cartoon programmes on television and more picture books in the shops and libraries; engage students in kindergartens to use Chinese amongst themselves; provide more scope for exposure to Chinese in our day-to-day life with signages in Chinese in the schools, supermarkets and streets. Of course, we may try to encourage usage of Chinese Language at home as what a "mother tongue" should be.

This White Paper will introduce a modular approach at primary level with Core, Reinforcement and Enrichment modules. But the students will sit for a common examination after primary level for PSLE. May I ask the Minister whether the aggregate scores on PSLE will remain and be based on the grades of Chinese, English, Mathematics and Science? Candidates of PSLE and parents pay a lot of emphasis on PSLE aggregates as these will determine the choice of schools for the students in the secondary level. Many parents may opt for the enrichment modules for fear of losing out regardless of the capability of their children. Therefore, will this modular system be treated as another form of "streaming"? At the tertiary level, will students be required just to pass Chinese Language for university entry here? I have heard that the medical faculty here requires their applicants to score highest grade in Chinese on top of all other subjects in "A" levels before they are considered for entry. Should there be more flexibility on Chinese Language in the entrance criteria for all our schools, polytechnics and universities?

It has been mentioned that the stress level of students here, in terms of overload, has increased since 1990. Overloading a child may cause not only aversion to learning but also hampering his or her exploratory space and creativity. In 1999, school syllabuses were cut by as much as 30% only to be nullified by some teachers in some schools giving more homework to fill up the time. In the 1999 exercise, whilst the curriculum was trimmed, the examination format did not change; resulting in students and teachers remaining pressurised. Is the Ministry of Education keeping track of the workload of our pupils and ensuring that any anomaly that contributes to the pressure in our teachers and students is addressed? A healthy attitude towards learning as a whole will influence the learning of second language in our schools. Alas, memory work is still essential to master the Chinese Language in a long lasting effect. However, memory work need not be boring when it is motivated and especially when the right teaching techniques are used. Nevertheless, I am glad that the new examination format in Chinese will see a reduction of Chinese character memorisation as this will lighten the workload on pupils.

Sir, I always believe the success of any policy will be based on how well the respective Ministry gets its policy understood and supported by fellow Singaporeans. I hope that the Ministry of Education will spare no effort in this regard. The mindset change of teachers, students and parents is key to solving our present dilemma. There is a need for close collaboration and understanding between policy makers, educators, students and parents. Parents may undo what the Ministry of Education is trying to improve by pushing their children for more tuition, more homework and more character memorisation in the hope for higher scores in the public examinations. And I will not blame the parents going this way if it turns out that it is still the "A" that counts at the end of the day. Certainly, our system must ensure that when we tell someone to go on and enjoy studying the second language and when we say a pass will do, it must mean just that - a pass will do, good to have an "A", but is not necessary. Our system must look at our pupils in a more holistic way and with the right approach, parents can be courted and influenced to add value and enhance the implementation of our policy.

Sir, the best outcome from our debate today will be to see the next generation of Singaporeans who not only speak and read Chinese but also have the passion for the Chinese Language and Chinese heritage. This can be achieved by having not only the correct policy, but also the sustainable and long-term tenacity on implementation details.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the White Paper on the reform of Chinese Language teaching makes several recommendations. All these recommendations are very good and they deserve our support. For example, it is recommended that students should be taught according to their abilities so that those who are better can progress further, and that modern technologies such as computer and Information Technology (IT) be deployed in the teaching. The revamp in curriculum and assessment system, favourable environment within and outside the school, are all aimed at enhancing the students' interest in the learning of the mother tongue language. These are all very good, but they must not forget the most important element of all - the people.

The mindset of the people is very important. If we want Singaporeans to be successful, we cannot just merely rely on MOE's efforts to revamp the curriculum and the assessment books. It is important that the stakeholders should cooperate with us. Therefore, the mindset of the people is very important. I agree with Mr Ong Ah Heng who raised this point just now. Lim Yi Min, a journalist, in his article titled "Revolution of Mindsets" published in Zaobao on 16th October 2004, said that there should be a revolutionary change in the mindset of the people. I quote: "What the Government should adjust is not just the teaching methods and curriculum but also the parents' mindset. The clear message that many parents are currently sending is that we should be more serious with the learning of English and that the learning of Chinese is not necessary. Therefore, something must be done to correct their mindset." However, I would go further than this. Apart from the parents, Government leaders, the decision makers in the Government departments and the people at large should also re-adjust their mindset. Only then can the reform be carried out successfully.

Due to our special national context, English has become the dominant language of administration, and the Chinese language is in a weakened position. We have accepted this fact. With the emergence of China, the international status of the Chinese Language has become more prominent and important. All over the world, people are cashing in on the learning of the Chinese Language, and this international environment is favourable to the learning of Chinese. Our parents should be aware of this. However, many parents still prefer to use English in the conversation with their children. Why? Because in Singapore we are very pragmatic and realistic. Parents are aware that, as far as the current interest is concerned, English is still the working language, and hence it is more important than the mother tongue language. If you do not know the mother tongue, you can still manage to get along quite well. But if you do not know English, then you are doomed. You cannot find jobs. It is difficult to make a living in Singapore if you do not know the English Language.

Therefore, we can understand why some parents who are not too proficient in English, yet choose to speak to the children in English at shopping malls, hawker centres, etc, such as, "Boy, why like that?" "Ask you don't touch, you touch. Now things broken, how?" This is the kind of English spoken. This is a strange phenomenon, uniquely Singapore. From the survey, 50% of Primary 1 students come from English-speaking families. I do not know if these so-called English-speaking families include parents who speak in this kind of English.

To make the reform a success, we must make sure that all Chinese children are proficient in Chinese. Not only should we make Chinese a living language in the school, as suggested by the White Paper in recommendation No. 8, the language should be used in every strata of society, in every ethnic Chinese family. Only then can we achieve the objectives of the reform. Therefore, I suggest that, apart from the recommendations of the White Paper, we have to consider how to make sure that every Chinese family speak Mandarin, and that every one in the society can use and will use his mother tongue.

Therefore, in the first place, the Government should re-adjust its policy. In order to change the mindset of pragmatic Singaporeans, the Government should send out a very clear message that learning the mother tongue is very important, as it has a positive impact on our future. Although I do not agree that a language should be solely linked to a utilitarian purpose, we must not deny that we are living in a realistic society. There is no alternative. Therefore, we should make sure that the mother tongue can bring about tangible benefits before it can make people change their mindset and make them like to learn it. Many parents send their children to English schools because of practical reasons. Therefore, I urge the Government to prove its sincerity by practical measures.

The Government should appoint bilingual civil servants and promote them to important positions so that their bilingual talent could be put to optimal use. It has been said that our civil servants are mostly English-speaking. Those who are bilingual are not given important positions and their bilingual talent is not put to good use. Therefore, if the Government can set an example, then we will know that people with a good knowledge of Chinese can not only work in the teaching profession and the media, but they can also have good career prospects in other professions and sectors as well.

Moreover, the Government should promote those competent Chinese teachers. I fully agree with Mdm Cynthia Phua. Those competent and talented Chinese teachers should be appointed to important positions like principals and vice-principals, or to the higher positions in the MOE. Only when there are many bilingual people given important influential positions throughout the whole Government can we say that we have fully implemented the bilingual policy. And only with bilingual elite within the system, then they can effectively and thoroughly implement the bilingual policy in the Government sector.

In order to send out the correct message, I hope the Government leaders can also set an example by making use of Mandarin on suitable occasions. They should use Mandarin more frequently. I also hope that the Government officials would not, under the pretext of administrative convenience, refrain from using other languages for road signs, notice boards, MRT stations, bus stations and other Government notices. We need to create a big environment conducive to the learning and using of the mother tongue languages. Otherwise, mere reform in curriculum and pedagogy will not work. In the school, they learn Chinese, but when they go out of the school, they cannot see any Chinese characters anywhere. What they see is English. What they hear is, "How are you?" They do not hear ni hao ma? How do we create a favourable environment for the learning of Chinese?

The "Speak Mandarin" campaign has been very successful and it helps us to create an environment for speaking Mandarin. Every Chinese family should speak Mandarin. Most families now speak English, but this can be reversed. This is not irreversible.

We can encourage more Chinese families to use Mandarin when speaking to their children. When children enter school, they are seven years old. The period from one year old to six years old is very important for the learning of languages. If, during this period, they have no opportunity of hearing or speaking in Mandarin, they will find difficulties in learning Chinese later on when they go to school.

Therefore, I hope the Government and the grassroots organisations, the Chinese community and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry could make a concerted effort to encourage Chinese families to use Mandarin in their daily conversations. Good TV programmes should be produced. Our radio and television stations do not have high-quality Mandarin programmes. In fact, we can import more educational and entertainment programmes, such as Animal Planet, National Geographic, which are dubbed in Mandarin. Cartoons and Walt Disney programmes can also be dubbed in Mandarin. They can be imported. We can also urge our Chinese families, especially the English-speaking Chinese families, to encourage their children to watch more such programmes in order to gain more exposure to Chinese. If, from the time they start learning the language the children can hear Mandarin being spoken, they would not be averse to the learning of Chinese.

5.28 pm

Let me return to the school environment. I agree with MOE that the Chinese Language should be a living language in the school environment, so that more is being heard and seen in Chinese. We should also consider our Malay and Tamil communities. Apart from encouraging Chinese students to learn Chinese, we should also encourage Malay and Indian students to have the equal opportunity to learn their mother tongue languages. Perhaps we can designate certain "mother tongue days", one or two days a week, to encourage pupils and teachers to make more use of the mother tongue in their communications. But it should be encouraged and not forced. It should not be made compulsory. To do so would achieve the opposite result.

Another point is that we should increase the lesson time for Chinese. The White Paper recommends that in secondary schools, Chinese can be used to teach other subjects. I propose that this be extended to the primary school level, so that certain non-examination subjects could be taught in Chinese, eg, Civics, Physical Education, Music, Arts, etc. With Chinese being used in the teaching of more subjects, the students will have more exposure to the language, and will find it easier to learn Chinese.

Another point is that we should enhance the standard of Higher Chinese. I think this can be done. In certain secondary schools, the students are not so proficient in the Chinese language. In order to be really proficient in two languages, we should raise their mastery of the Chinese Language. Now that we have bi-cultural programmes, we also have schemes to teach current affairs in China, and general knowledge about China. However, to be fair to the students, these must be packaged in different subjects rather than being bundled together as one subject. If they sit for only one subject in Chinese, then parents and students who are very pragmatic will not be likely to put in the efforts to learn Chinese. If two or three subjects are taught in Chinese and the students are given the opportunity to sit for examinations conducted in Chinese for more than one subject, then it will encourage more students to learn Chinese.

Another point I want to raise is that during the process of reform, we should be flexible. Firstly, we should allow the non-Chinese in our society the opportunity to learn Chinese. Many non-Chinese parents hope that their children can have the opportunity to learn Chinese as well, because they observe the emergence of China's economy and they hope that their children can also benefit by engaging with China. So we should not set any restrictiion for non-Chinese students who want to learn it as a third language.

Likewise, for Chinese students, there should not be any restriction that the students must attain a certain standard in English before they can opt for Higher Chinese. This does not help in promoting the taking up of Higher Chinese studies. We need to be flexible so that our students can develop their talent. I heard on radio that one parent complained to the MOE that his son was not allowed to study Higher Chinese because his English marks were not up to the standard required by the school. He scored only 68 marks instead of the hurdle set at 70 by his school. This is unnecessary and unfair. If the student's strong point is in the Chinese Language, then we should allow him to pursue the language and not put him off because of his poor standard in English. He is being deprived of the chance to study Higher Chinese. In this way, he will end up being poor in both his English and Chinese.

After talking a lot about the technicalities of the problem, I would like to remind MOE that language has got two basic functions. All along, we have been stressing the economic function of the language. But mother tongue has its cultural function as well. In the course of reform, we should not belittle the importance of Chinese as a means to transmit culture. We hope that the Education Minister and his officials would make it a point to maintain or transmit the Chinese culture through the Chinese Language.

The Chinese language is an "old language." It has a long history of civilisation. The Chinese Language has been evolving over the ages. It has history stretching over a few thousand years. Yet, it remains a living language. It does not stop evolving. Therefore, in our daily lives, we should make use of the language. If we can change our mindset, if we can create the big and small environments for learning the language, we can say that we have succeeded in our bilingual education policy and that we have achieved the objectives set down by the White Paper.

Sir, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the debate in this House on the White Paper on Chinese Language curriculum and pedagogy reform will have an important and crucial impact on our bilingual policy, as well as the development of our economy and culture, hereafter.

First of all, allow me to use myself as an example to illustrate the direction and some facts of our bilingual policy since independence.

I am a science graduate from a Chinese school. I underwent 12 years of Chinese primary and secondary education. During the secondary school days, in 1965/1966, our schools started to use English as the medium of instruction for the teaching of mathematics and science subjects. Both Chinese and English were used, and it was very tough for us. After completing my Higher School Certificate, I was admitted to the Engineering Faculty at the University of Singapore. The standard of my Chinese at that time was not too bad for a science student, but my English was no good. Fortunately, though engineering subjects were taught in English, we did not have to possess grammatically accurate English. My academic results were not seriously affected.

After four years of university studies and 2½ years of National Service, I went overseas for further studies for five years. I could say that I had almost forgotten my Chinese. I remember when I was studying in Canada, whenever I had to write a Chinese letter to my mother, I would have to put in a lot of efforts.

From 1971 to 1988, my English improved a lot but the standard of my Chinese dropped drastically. In 1988, when I became a Member of Parliament, I began to pick up Chinese again. Because of my earlier foundation in Chinese, I had no problem conversing with the residents in Mandarin. But if I had to write a speech or to make a speech in Parliament, despite my being Chinese-educated, I found it rather difficult. In fact, I seldom spoke in Mandarin in Parliament. The reason is very simple because English is my working language. It is so much easier to write in English than to write in Chinese. Why should I bother to spend so much time and effort writing in Chinese?

But in recent years, because of my work, I have to go to China very frequently. I discover that my Chinese has improved. For example, in writing today's speech, it is so much easier. In the past, when I had to speak in Mandarin, I would write the text in English first and then translate it into Chinese. But this time, I wrote my speech directly in Chinese. I feel that it is easier now.

Why am I telling the House this experience of mine? This is because I wish to bring out the following points:

Firstly, our brain power is limited. Unless we make use of two languages frequently, it is not possible for us to maintain our proficiency in both the two languages. Likewise, our students have a lot of homework to do. It is not easy for them to master two languages simultaneously. Even for those whose standard of Chinese is not bad, it may not necessarily mean that they could use Chinese effectively. It would appear that it is easier for them to learn other subjects than to learn Chinese. They have to spend a lot of time on Chinese, the effort is many times more than that spent on the other subjects. Even then, the standard of Chinese is not very good and, at the same time, because of the extra time spent on Chinese, results of the other subjects are affected. So why should they do that? If we have too high an expectation for our students in the standard of Chinese, then I think it would be counter-effective. I fully support the recommendation that we should teach them according to their abilities.

Secondly, the study of a language has a lot to do with the environment, interest and the practical needs. Since independence, for our economic development, our education system trend has been towards application. This is correct. Otherwise, we will not have what we have in Singapore today. However, no matter how hard we work, the younger generation of students could not maintain the standard of Chinese. This is a fact. Apart from what I said of having too high an expectation for them, I feel that the important factor is that we lack the environment and the need for Chinese to be used.

I have three children. I came from a Chinese school. My wife was also Chinese-educated. My three children can manage Chinese but they have no interest in it, and they are not as proficient as I am when speaking in Mandarin. What is the reason? I feel that is because they do not have the environment. In the schools, when the students converse amongst themselves, they use mainly English. They feel that there is no necessity for them to use Chinese and naturally, they will lose their interest in Chinese. On top of that, if the teaching method is not so good, then the students will not be able to absorb what they have learnt. So I hope that after the reform, the schools will put more emphasis in creating a better environment for the learning of Chinese and adopt the appropriate methods of teaching. Just now, Dr Ong mentioned that we should create the environment not only in schools but also outside the schools, so that our pupils will have more opportunities to make use of Chinese, and hence feel that there is practical use for the Chinese Language and Mandarin.

Thirdly, I must emphasise that the bilingual policy is appropriate to our cultural roots. Because of our future economic development, we must learn Chinese and learn it well. I am not saying that we must be thoroughly proficient in it, because it is very subjective to say how good one must be to be thoroughly proficient. So it is very hard to say how well you must learn it. But you must learn it correctly. In my own experience, because I have the foundation in Chinese, although my standard of Chinese at one time was very low, but when necessary, I could brush it up and have a reasonable command of it. Now, because of my developments in China, I feel that it is very important to have this knowledge of Chinese. Although sometimes, in my life, the standard of my Chinese has dropped but with some hard work, I could build on my existing foundation and could make full use of the knowledge that I have learnt.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our Chinese education has come to a crossroad. How should we progress from here? I support the recommendations in the White Paper, ie, we must first of all, be flexible; secondly, we must teach according to the abilities of the students and, thirdly, we must enthuse our students and develop in them the interest to learn the language. We must, first of all, give them a good foundation in listening, reading, speaking and later, if they have the potential, in writing Chinese.

Why is it that all these years, the changes in reform for the teaching of Chinese has been so slow? I have been in politics for 17 years. I have seen changes in the policies. In the beginning, the Government hoped that everyone could be effectively bilingual. However, when they noticed the trend and discovered that this was a very uphill task and that our standard had been dropping all along, they changed their policy. I observe that Chinese-educated elites do not wish to see such a trend. They hope that the Government would enhance the study of Chinese. That is why whenever the Government embarks on a reform to the teaching of Chinese Language, they would be very concerned. I do understand that the Chinese-educated elites have good motives and they wish that everyone in Singapore would attain a good level of the Chinese Language. However, this is impossible. Although they have good motives, they are fighting a losing battle. So I hope that on this occasion, they will give the Government their full support for these new policies.

We have to face reality. Only then can we make the correct response and make the correct decisions. And also, the attitude of the parents should also change because all along, most parents are very pragmatic. Their choice is normally in line with the Government's policies. So I believe that on this occasion, the recommendations of the White Paper can give the parents a very clear picture of what the real situation is. Nevertheless, the decisions of the parents must be based on the interest of the children, that is, if they feel that their children are able, they should encourage them. If they feel that their children are having difficulties, then they should not force them. I support this recommendation of the White Paper to leave the decision to the parents. In the end, the parents should know what is best for their children.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the successful implementation of the new policy is of paramount importance. For the students to have a breakthrough in the learning of Chinese, I think we should, first of all, enthuse the students in wanting to learn the language. To attract their interest is of great importance. What the schools can do is that they should review the teaching methods, and I am sure the schools can do a good job in it, not only to enhance the students' interest but also enhance their absorption of what they have learnt in the Chinese language.

I remember in the younger days when I was learning Chinese, there was this fairy tale and I believe that many of my colleagues here must have heard of this story. This is a very simple story. There were three fictitious characters, the "Qian li Yan" (telescopic eyes), the "Shun Feng Er" (the clairaudience) and the "da li shi" (mighty strong man). The first guy could see things a great distance away, the second guy could hear voices a long way off; while the third man was so strong that he could lift up a big buffalo. This is a simple story but it attracted the interest and left a deep impression in them. Qian li yan, shun feng er and da li shi are very common expressions in Chinese. But if you name the fictitious characters with these expressions, it would be easier and clearer for the students to know their meanings and hence commit to memory the use of these expressions. So when we are teaching our children the Chinese language, we should use more stories to arouse their interest. I believe that if we can do that, the learning of Chinese language would be more effective.

Sir, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this motion. I would also like to take this opportunity to air some of my views on the White Paper.

With greater importance being given to the English language in the late 70s and early 80s, there has already been a very clear sign that more and more parents are sending their children to the English schools. In the 1980s, the Government unified the education system in Singapore. Since 1982, there have been no distinct English schools or Chinese schools. All students in Singapore now go to national stream schools.

Statistics show that currently the number of Mandarin-speaking families is reducing while the number of English-speaking families is increasing. This is the trend and that is the result of the change of the education system in the 1980s. Those who were attending Secondary one in 1982 and were affected by the education reform in the 80s are probably having children going to Primary 1 in 2008. If our bilingual education system succeeds from then onwards, by 2008, the Chinese students whose parents speak only English and no Mandarin should come down in number. By then, the mainstream will be families speaking both Mandarin and English fluently.

The current problem of children having difficulty learning Chinese because either parents speak only English will probably be resolved by the year 2020 (12 years from 2008). In future, there should be fewer monolingual families and more bilingual families in Singapore. This is my prediction. By 2008, I think the Ministry of Education may have to consider revamping our Chinese Language curriculum again to face the changes in that new era.

What are the problems faced by students in learning Chinese? The White Paper did not make any specific analysis of the problems. It only says that there are difficulties in learning, and the students do not like the Chinese lessons. There is no mention of whether the students have, in fact, attained the prescribed standard under the existing teaching method.

On the other hand, two days ago, the Ministry of Education announced that in the 2003 PSLE, 'O' level and 'A' level examinations, more than 94% of the students passed the Chinese Language examinations at the various levels. On the other hand, only 85% of the students managed to pass the English Language examination at 'O' level - 85% for English but 94% for Chinese. This is also shown in Table 4 of the White Paper. In this Table, it is also shown that 51.5% of Secondary 4 students had difficulties in learning the English Language. But in the case of Chinese Language, the Table shows only 45% of students had difficulty. In Mathematics, 52% of the students found it difficult. Perhaps after this White Paper, we may have to seriously consider a review of the teaching and curriculum of English and Mathematics as well!

How do we deal with difficulties in learning? If there are difficulties, what is a positive way to deal with them? One positive way is to get better teachers, use the best teaching methods, the best teaching aids and a better overall environment to help weak students so that they would gradually catch up. If we choose to avoid the important and dwell on the trivial to lessen the learning difficulty of the students by teaching less of the difficult topics and going by the easier ones all the way, it will make life easier for the students, but the eventual result will be that the students would be lacking in both learning and practical ability, ignorant and incompetent. They would learn but know nothing.

The core module recommended in the White Paper emphasises listening, speaking and reading, but less emphasis on writing. What will be the eventual outcome for the learning of Chinese? If the recommended Chinese curriculum is customised to suit the present 42% to 47% of students who have difficulty in learning Chinese, then the expected outcome will be that the 12% EM3 students would complete the said core module at the minimum standard, with the remaining 30% who originally had learning difficulty, completing the core module in a relaxed and less painful situation, at PSLE level. Is this the outcome that we want?

As regards students who are more comfortable with Chinese, how will the new curriculum benefit them? These students account for 53%-57% of the cohort, with 10% taking Higher Chinese. In the event that enrolment for Higher Chinese does not increase hereafter, it would imply that as much as 43% to 47% of the students would have to accommodate those who are having learning difficulties and thereby drastically lower their level of learning for the Chinese language. The outcome may not be what the Ministry of Education wants to see. This large group of potential Chinese elites may well be the victims of the curriculum changes. This will have negative impact on our desire to use our advantage in Chinese to share the economic prosperity of China. I hope that the Ministry of Education would give more space to these more able students with the vast majority of them to be absorbed into the Higher Chinese courses.

There is a traditional Chinese saying, "It takes 10 years to grow trees but 100 years to rear people." This is to say that if the education system fails, the damage will be evident only 100 years later. We have to be very careful whenever we make any changes to the education system. We should not be obsessed with specious slogans which may appear to be right, but are actually wrong!

Of late, we hear a lot of people advocating "teach less, learn more" and "recognise first, write later". In my personal opinion, these slogans are right in some aspects and wrong in some other aspects. It depends on who and where these concepts are applied. In the case of the students of Raffles Institution and Chinese High, teaching less and learning more is correct, because the academic results of these students are so good that even without the teachers, they can do well! However, if you apply the "teach less, learn more" concept on the weaker neighbourhood schools, the students may be so free that they have nothing to do and loiter at the shopping centres every day.

As for recognising first, and writing later, or even no writing, I have very big reservations:

This is a concept of teaching Chinese which is still in the experimental stage in China. Why do we want to adopt a concept which other people are experimenting to be our mainstream method of teaching? This is much too risky! If it turns out to be defective, we stand to lose time for another generation of people in Singapore.

It is said that this experimental method works in Shanghai, but it does not necessarily mean that it will be effective in Singapore. I say this because in Shanghai, you see Chinese characters all over the places, whereas in Singapore, Chinese is not used even on street names and sign boards. Recognition of words is not an easy thing to do, especially in Singapore. Very often, the Chinese words are written wrongly, or the wrong words are used. Being made to look at these wrong words, you will get accustomed to them, hence, you recognise and learn the wrong words. A few days ago, I went to Block 3, Singapore General Hospital. There was a huge banner with three Chinese characters, gan, si, nin（感 �? 您）on it. These are very beautifully calligraphed Chinese characters. But these three Chinese characters put together do not mean anything. I asked my wife, "What do you think?" She replied that there seemed to be a religious flavour in it. These Chinese characters, when put together in this manner, do not look or sound Chinese. It is neither a phrase nor a sentence. If the standard of our Chinese is so pathetic and yet the ignorance is displayed in open view to members of the public, what kind of effect will it have on our young students? Recognise and learn - the wrong thing! If our students learn just to recognise without learning how to write the characters correctly, they may not be able to appreciate the finer details of the Chinese words.

In China, Chinese is their first language. Before the children start learning to recognise the characters, they are already young linguists in their own rights. Ask them a question, and they can answer eloquently in Mandarin as quickly as the flow of water. How can we compare our children from the English-speaking families with the young children in China?

"Recognise first, write later" means to say recognising more words in the shortest possible time, thereby enhancing the ability to learn how to read, and through reading you enhance the Chinese standard and the interest in it. Has it ever occurred to us that recognising more words would also mean that we have to memorise more words? At the same time, would it not add to the learning burden of our students if they have to memorise more words? If we are not careful, "recognise first, write later" may also turn out to be a contributing factor to the difficulty in learning for our students.

I heard that the number of characters in our Character List will be reduced by 20%. If "recognise first, write later" is really successful, then the materials in the existing curriculum whereby our students "simultaneously recognise and write" and complete by secondary four, be so much easier for our students under "recognise first and write later." They could complete the curriculum in no time, and we may just have to put in more teaching materials to fill up the vacated Chinese lesson times? That being the case, will the students not be made to learn more than what they are doing today? Will this not add to the burden of our students?

This White Paper hopes to help the students who have difficulty in learning Chinese by providing them with an easier, more interesting method of "more listening, speaking and reading but less writing" to complete the basic core module in Chinese. It also hopes to develop the students' love and interest in Chinese. This is a well-meaning intention, and I support it. However, such simplification of the learning process of the Chinese language may just sacrifice some students who originally had the potential to learn higher levels of Chinese. If, in the future, too many secondary school graduates can achieve only the core module level whereby they could only read but cannot write, then our desire of levelling up on our people's proficiency in the Chinese Language as an advantage to catch a share in China's economic success will be in vain. If this is going to be the case, and we want to reverse the situation, we are going to lose the time of yet another generation of people in Singapore.

In conclusion, I would like to quote from an article in the Lianhe Zaobao which said, "Do not make the general standard of Chinese so low that it becomes a 'car that cannot even hit the road'!"

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Lim Swee Say].

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, recently Yi Jing (Book of Changes) scholars from all over the world held its World Conference in Singapore and I was invited to be the Guest-of-Honour. I consulted Mr Seng Han Thong and sought his help to prepare my speech at the Opening Ceremony. From there, I learnt something about this great classic, Yi Jing or the Book of Changes. In this Book of Changes, it brings forward the theory that everything in the universe is subjected to one of the three very important kinds of changes.

Firstly, bian yi (variance or changes), that is, everything, everybody, every object in this world is subject to changes. Secondly, bu bian (invariance or no change). Although everyone changes, everything changes, certain things remain unchanged. For example, the sky is always the sky; the earth is always the earth, and this is the invariance among the variance. Thirdly, jian bian (simplification). Some have to change while some will not change. So how do we know what has to be totally changed, what does not need to be changed at all? Well, the answer is that if we understand the reason for the change, then embracing change is easier and simple, and life would be easier for us.

In the last few weeks, I have been thinking how I could apply what I have learned from the Book of Changes to this debate in Parliament. This White Paper also brings me to three important points: certain things in the teaching of Mandarin have to change; certain things should not be changed, and the reasons for certain changes must be clearly understood for the changes to be implemented effectively.

I remember when I was a Primary 3 student in the primary section of Catholic High School, I was in the afternoon session. There was a period when every day, at about 12.15 pm, I would have stomachache. So I told my father, "I have stomachache. I cannot go to school." The first time I managed to skip school. The second time I also managed to get through. But on the third time, my father said, "No. It is very serious. Stomachache is all right. But if you have stomachache at 12 o'clock every day, then it is not stomachache; it must be gastric problem. You will have to see a doctor." The doctor examined me and said, "It can't be. Your child is only nine years' old. How could he have gastric problem? I think there must be something in the school that made him not want to go to school." Why was it that I did not want to go to school? Catholic High School was a bilingual school at that time. The standard of English was very high. I could not catch up with the standard of English in the school. Every day, when I attended the English lesson, I would receive corporal punishment for not able to keep up with the lessons, and it was painful, so much so that I dared not go to school.

Why am I telling this story? Because this reminds me that many years ago when I was a student, learning English was very difficult. But, today, the students feel that learning Chinese is difficult. So, which is more difficult? English or Chinese? My conclusion is, no matter whether it is English or Chinese, so long as you are learning a second language, it is going to be difficult. Why? This is because our brain power and our ability to digest our learning is limited. So I think that we have to change our mindset and our expectation of our students in their ability to master two languages. Over the years, we have been pressurising our students. We want everyone to attain a certain level of competence in both the languages. But everybody has different learning abilities. We should not keep on exerting pressures on them.

I remember about 10 years ago, after my two years' posting in the United States, my children attended a primary school in Singapore. Having spent two years in the States, they refused to speak Mandarin at home. I wanted to force them to speak Mandarin, I told them, "From now onwards, every night from 7.00 pm to 8.00 pm, during dinner time, you could only speak Mandarin. No English is allowed. Since you are living in Singapore, as Singaporeans, you have to be bilingual." At that time, my daughter was in Primary 1, but she already had her own mind. She said, "All right. If you force us to speak only Mandarin from 7.00 to 8.00 o'clock every night, then I would keep quiet and not say a word. It is so difficult to speak in Mandarin!" So, when we exert too much pressure on them, I think they will be turned off and repulsive.

I do not agree with the Member for Potong Pasir that if our students have failed in the mother tongue language, they should not be admitted to the university, that we should force them to stay back for one year, and that it would not affect their future. I totally disagree with him. Because if you force our students to stay one more year just because their MTL is no good, it will deal a very heavy blow on them. It would turn them off completely from the MTL and even grow repulsive towards it. I was very fortunate that when I was in Primary 3, when I could not catch up with the English language, Mr Chiam was not the Minister for Education, otherwise I would have to stay back for many years! So, my first point is that we have to change our mindset and accept the varying abilities of individual students to be bilingual.

My next point is that there is one area we cannot change. Since we accept that it is not easy to be bilingual, some people may say why not give up bilingualism altogether and be a monolingual society and monolingual people. This, I do not agree.

A mother mouse brought her children out to look for food one day and they met a cat. They were cornered by the cat and had no means to escape. At that critical moment when the cat was about to catch hold of the baby mice and eat them up, the mother mouse suddenly imitated the barking of the dog. When the cat heard the barking, it became frightened and ran away. So the mother mouse told her children, "All these years, I have been encouraging you to be bilingual. Now, you should know how important and useful to be bilingual."

I think the same applies to us. In this global economy of today, Chinese is used in China and English is used in the United States. If we are monolingual, we will be handicapped. When I was in Shanghai, I met a Singaporean. I asked him, "How is it here?" He said, "It is very good." I asked him, "Why?" He said, "I built up a strong foundation in my Chinese language when I was in primary and secondary school. When I came to China, I was like a fish in the water as I had no difficulty speaking Mandarin. I got along very well with the people here, and my business is very good." So I asked him, "Since you are communicating with the Chinese in Mandarin, which they all know, why are these people attracted to work with you and deal with you? What is so special about you?" He said, "Oh, although I communicated with them in Mandarin, they know that I could also speak and understand English! Because I know English, I would be able to have very direct contacts with the outside world." In other words, we have different strengths from theirs. We complement each other, and it benefits both sides. He is a Singapore fish, but he swims very well in this very great pond in China. He said, "I am a Singapore fish. But I am different from the Chinese fish. That is why the Chinese people find me attractive." So I said, "You are not only a Singapore fish. You are a Singapore frog. You can jump on the land and you can swim in the water. That is why you are doing so well." I think being bilingual is very useful. This is our strong point and this is something we should not easily give up. My second point is therefore this: in a world of change, this is something that should remain unchanged. No matter how we reform our education system, we must maintain our bilingual feature so that as many Singaporeans as possible could still be effectively bilingual, though to varying degrees.

My third point is: having accepted that it is not easy to be bilingual and being monolingual is no good, how should we change our method of learning and teaching? The Member for Potong Pasir said that the recommendation of this White Paper will lead to further decline in the standard of Chinese in Singapore. I do not agree. When my children were young, I wanted them to have a healthy body, and I sent them to a swimming school to learn swimming. Every day, they will go to the swimming pool, change into their swimming costume, do some warming up and then they plunge into the water and swim 20 or 30 laps. It was very boring, and after some time, my children said, "This is very boring. Can we stop the swimming lessons?" I spoke to the coach. I said, "They have learned how to swim. They are very healthy now. But then, they feel that your training method is quite boring." The coach said, "No problem." So the next morning, half way through their swimming, the coach blew the whistle and said, "Let's go to the smaller pool. Let's play water polo there." Since the children found the lap-swimming very boring, he decided to add in water polo, and with water polo, the children became interested. To play water polo well, you need to be able to swim fast. The children now have the incentive to train harder in swimming. By using this water polo method, he managed to enhance the interest of the children in learning swimming. Likewise, if we keep using a boring method to teach our children, sooner or later they will find it boring and lose interest in learning. We have to be innovative so that we can enhance their interest in the learning of the Chinese Language.

Recently, I sought the views of the Chinese teachers' community. I asked them what are the things that they are most concerned with in the teaching of Chinese Language. They told me that they are most concerned that our Singapore students are learning Chinese just for the sake of examination, and the teachers are teaching Chinese because of the school ranking. Because of that, the interest level is getting lower and lower, the effectiveness of learning is getting poorer and poorer, and more students have lost their confidence in the learning of the language. So we must change all these. How do we cultivate their interest, improve the effectiveness and enhance their confidence? I think the recommendations in this White Paper are correct. We have to have more innovative and more flexible use of teaching methods, teaching materials and technology so that our students will have a greater interest in the learning of Chinese. I think this is something that we have to change.

Under the present circumstances of not being easy to practise bilingualism on the one hand, and not being practical to be monolingual on the other hand, we have to make changes to make sure that all the students would sustain the interest to learn. All teachers, parents and students will have to work together to make the teaching and learning of Chinese more interesting and more effective. In Singapore, the overall environment is such that we are using English as our working language. With the rise of China, the opportunity of using Chinese is getting greater and greater in the larger environment of Asia. This means speaking more English in our international dealings, and more Chinese when engaging China. I think the present situation is actually very beneficial to Singapore because Singaporeans can make full use of our English-speaking environment to acquire a good standing in our exchanges with the western world. At the same time, with more opportunities to learn and speak Mandarin in Asia, we will be able to enhance our standards in Mandarin so that we would play a useful role in our engagement with China.

In this respect, I am hopeful that we would be able to strengthen the Chinese Language foundation of our younger generation of Singaporeans, and to make sure that they are better prepared and equipped for the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the changes proposed by the Review Committee come at a time when the whole education edifice is being reconstructed. Many parents, pupils, principals, administrators and teachers are reeling from the stream of changes the system has undergone over the past 12-18 months, such as through-train, new forms of school ranking, Sports School, Arts School, changes in pedagogical emphasis to continuous and project assessments, and so on and so forth.

This evening, we are here to debate yet more changes. But fundamental issues are at work here, and however unsettling these changes might be, I believe they are vital if we are to survive as a nation. For embedded in our mother tongues are the rich cultural heritage of the vast and ancient civilisations from which our ancestors derived and which anchors us to our Asian identity. If we deny our roots and allow westernisation to totally engulf us, our society would be greatly impoverished.

I, therefore, applaud the spirit of the Committee's recommendations and am in general agreement with the main thrusts to deal with the structural problems hindering Chinese Language learning, especially those from mainly English-speaking homes and, in extreme cases, driving some Singaporeans to migrate.

But I have four concerns which I would like to highlight using the P mnemonic and they are, firstly, pedagogical principles and approaches; secondly, prepping the next generation; thirdly, provision of adequate and appropriate teaching resources and, finally, promoting CL in the wider community.

Pedagogical principles and approaches

The most fundamental change proposed in the current White Paper, in my opinion, is the pedagogical approach to the teaching of Chinese Language. The Report notes that it is important to develop students' reading ability early in order to create and sustain their interest in the language.

The survey conducted by the Committee confirms that an inordinate amount of time is spent on script writing and character stroke memorisation. The Committee recommends that, across all levels, the current emphasis on writing and, in particular, character stroke memorisation for examinations - the cause of much aversion to Chinese Language learning for many children - needs to be changed. The MOE has accepted the Committee's recommendation to shift its teaching approach to "Recognise first, Write later".

These changes in pedagogical approach are welcome as the way Chinese is taught from the time I studied the subject in the 1960s to 1970s and now appears to have remained largely unchanged, except for the introduction of hanyu pinyin and the simplified Chinese characters. All these years, the emphasis remains on spelling, dictation and writing passages from memory even in the lower primary.

I remember my son, when he was in Primary 3 some five years ago, suddenly crying out at 10 pm in the night, as he was still struggling to finish his Chinese writing homework, which can sometimes amount to about 10 pages. He asked me, "Mom, why do I need to do so much writing in Chinese?" A year earlier, my eldest daughter had chicken pox then and could not attend school for two weeks. I had to bring her homework back for her, one of which was Chinese writing. And there were many pages of Chinese writing homework. Taking pity on her as she was still rather sick, I decided to help her write some of the Chinese words. I thought she would write some of the words on each page and I would complete the rest. This way, she would still have an opportunity to learn the words. When I went to school the next time to pick up another set of homework, after having handed in the earlier set, the Chinese teacher made this remark to me in Chinese: "Zhe ge zhen de shi fei chang ji kuai. Wei shen mo zhe ge xie zi, shang ban pian tong tong shi tui de, bu guo xia ban pian tong tong shi cuo de?" She said that it was very funny but you know for this set of homework because my daughter got the strokes right initially, but somehow got them all wrong at the back. That was because mummy wrote it.

I must say that both my older children are not averse to learning Chinese, and they got through the PSLE Chinese examinations reasonably well. In fact, I must confess that they help me now with my Chinese speeches as their command of the language is definitely much better than mine. However, admittedly, they had to spend a disproportionate amount of time learning Chinese Language in order to do well in the examinations. And I believe this story finds echoes in many, many families in Singapore.

Making learning Chinese more interesting through the use of more songs, verses, reading, recitation and other activities with less emphasis on character memorisation for the younger children would help avoid killing the interest in and a joy of learning Chinese for these children. Hopefully, this new approach would, as the Committee envisages in the Report, allow the students to recognise enough characters to read age-appropriate children's literature and thus enthuse them to read at a younger age.

Yet, the Report also seems to imply that the pedadogical approach of "Recognise first, Write later" is not yet conventional wisdom in language learning, even in CL-speaking countries. I wonder if it is then wise to base such a fundamental shift in teaching approach on what seems to be something experimental at this stage. Also, as a substantial number of CL educators will tell us that writing and reading are mutually reinforcing and one should not be emphasised at the expense of the other. How then can we ensure that we will not be dumbing down overall standards, while taking cognisance of the genuine difficulties some pupils face in CL learning? This, in fact, is the de facto primary concern of the Chinese intelligentsia which has led to much public debate and misgivings over the changes made to CL learning through the years.

Each successive change to Chinese Language learning has been largely seen by the Chinese intelligentsia as yielding to populist pressures which will result in lower standards of language learning and, ultimately, a culturally stunted generation of younger people. Even the new pedagogical approach is seen by some as a form of concession to pupils with weaker language aptitude.

Additionally, the CL learning seems to be converging with the learning of the other subjects as schools move towards a more continuous school-based assessment regime. This could well create more stress for pupils who have been drilled by years of emphasis on what the Report calls "high stakes national examinations". I urge the Ministry to promote group-based assignments that can allow mingling of pupils of varying abilities and their project work. Exposure in this way could help the weaker pupils. The stronger ones will still be able to shine in their individual assessments. I also urge that such project work for CL learning be done in classrooms as much as possible to avoid parental assistance, although speaking from personal experience, this is unlikely to be forthcoming even from the English-speaking homes.

I further urge the MOE to monitor the effects that such project-based work have on pupils' stress levels and learning outcomes. The Report also talks about resting of a wider range of skills instead of what is essentially memorisation of Chinese characters. Again, this follows the direction the teaching of non-language subjects are taking. But perhaps we should have graded levels of difficulty and confine such testing of high-order skills to CL and HCL, and not the Bridging or Reinforcement modules, which are essentially coaching classes.

Prepping the next generation

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as part of my personal preparation for this debate, I looked up the Ministerial Statement by then-DPM Lee on the last CL review in 1999. I am struck by the fact that there is an uncanny similarity between the review at that time and what we are now debating. The problems that led to this present review were already highlighted some five years ago, eg, rising percentages of EL-speaking homes, growing economic and political importance of China, and the need for a Chinese elite. The objective of wanting every Singaporean to study his mother tongue for as long as possible and to as high a level as he is capable of was also similar. In fact, the same company, Forbes Research, was also commissioned to do a survey for that review. However, most of the recommendations were then targeted at secondary schools. This present review is now moving the changes upstream, to the primary school levels, in due recognition that it is better to start early and to have a more differentiated and customised approach to allow students to learn as far as their abilities allow.

Sir, should we then not consider shifting these changes even further up the education chain to the pre-primary levels? While I recognise that pre-primary education is not part of the national education system but very much left to the private sector and social sector initiatives, there is implicit recognition that basics count in CL learning, and the earlier we start exposure of the language to our pupils, the better. Given that English-speaking homes are still on the rise, the pre-primary learning environment becomes a crucial bridge for pupils to acquire foundational CL skills. Perhaps the Bridging modules the review spoke of should be developed with a pre-primary orientation in view. I certainly hope that we will not have to debate another review committee's report on CL in pre-primary schools five years from now.

Providing adequate and appropriate resources

I find it quite perplexing and rather ironic but at the same time amusing that, besides the students, many teachers are now also saying that the textbooks and teaching materials are uninteresting and turn off students from wanting to read them. Textbook writers, we are now told, were hitherto constrained in their ability to produce more interesting materials, as they are to stick to five stipulated moral themes and also characters from a prescribed word list. Teachers also blame the current examination format for limiting what they can do to make Chinese lessons lively and interesting. To meet the demands of the curriculum, they say that they have to resort to tried and tested repetitive drilling of students. Yet, I distinctly remember that some three years ago at a dialogue session, I had made the remark that perhaps we can review the teaching method for CL as the emphasis on rote learning on spelling, dictation, etc, does not seem to have changed over the years and this is off-putting to students. Back came the almost immediate retort from a teacher that this is the way Chinese Language ought to be taught, there is no short cut. I was taken aback, but shrugged it off since I am clearly no authority on the language.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I trust there will not be serious resistance to these changes from CL teachers who are themselves the implementors of this new approach to CL learning. Perhaps the sentiment is not shared by all Chinese Language teachers. But I believe that there are Chinese Language teachers who do not necessarily subscribe to the newly advocated approach to teaching and learning CL. Also, if the issues and problems that have been highlighted were known all along by the teachers, why was nothing done about it till now? In fact, it was reported in the press that, when interviewed, a teacher had said that she had heard about the methods emphasising character recognition for a long time now and was eager to try out this new approach. Were there no avenues of feedback to MOE for the teachers? Or, if such feedback were given, why were they not acted upon? What then would trigger follow-up action on feedback received from teachers and principals who are at the ground and have first-hand knowledge of the relevance and effectiveness of MOE's prescribed policies?

Just as the pedagogical approach to teaching CL is the most fundamental change in the current review, the key responsibility of implementing the changes appears to fall on the teachers. Among others, the Report calls for teachers to be trained such that they can identify students who could benefit from the Bridging or Reinforcement modules and advise parents accordingly early on in the school year. Teachers are also called upon to use creative and innovative tools and techniques, including IT project work, etc, to enthuse and sustain children's interest in the learning of CL. Has the Ministry already formulated ideas as to how teachers can be trained adequately to enable them to assess the student's learning abilities and, ultimately, the modules he should take? What diagnostic tools would MOE make available to help the teacher in this task, which may be challenged by the parents?

Clearly, to ensure that the recommended approaches to teaching and learning CL, including the new mantra of "Recognise first, Write later", more innovative teaching methods, etc, yield positive results, existing and new CL teachers must be adequately and appropriately trained and equipped. There is no short cut to this process, and it will take time. Teachers' workload must also be recalibrated so that they will not only have sufficient time to be trained or retrained, but also have time to prepare more creative and interactive lesson projects and tests. Furthermore, even as the slew of sweeping changes are being phased in, and the jury is still out on the success of these changes, the MOE must have built-in mechanisms to monitor and review these changes and gather feedback from the teachers who are implementing the changes, and not hesitate to initiate further changes, if required. Learning from the experiences of the previous review, the MOE clearly does not have a monopoly on wisdom. Therefore, it should develop a dynamic and flexible feedback mechanism to enable it to make timely revisions and refinements to the ambitious changes it is implementing and, hence, ensure its success. This is because we really cannot afford to fail this time, with such fundamental changes and after so many attempts trying to reverse the tide. Otherwise, there are implications on the success of our bilingual policy, with mother tongue learning having seen the most number of changes in the education system to-date.

Promoting the language in the wider community

Sir, the broader problem we face is one of language competition. The rising use of English in homes, and probably the death of Chinese-medium schools close to 20 years ago, stems from its universal acceptance as a global language of commerce and our Singaporean families' well-known pragmatism. If we cast our eyes 20 to 30 years hence, the yuan may become a world currency on par with the US dollar, the Euro and the yen. Chinese may then, likewise, be on par with English or, arguably, even overtake it. There will always be a tension between older Chinese Singaporeans and possibly the Chinese elite and intellectuals on one hand, and the English-speaking folks on the other hand. Some schools are often typecast as "ang mo pai" - English tag, versus "tng nan pai" - Chinese tag, to reflect their pupils' standard of CL ability. This is unfortunate, but perhaps quite unavoidable. I think parents also have their roles to play in this whole equation. They need to make a conscious effort to provide as conducive an environment for their children's CL learning. Of course, that presumes that the parents themselves must attain a certain proficiency in the language and be able to communicate in Chinese to their children in a real-life everyday setting and in a natural way. Perhaps this is the reason why Malays have done better in their mother tongue, as more Malay families speak mother tongue at home.

To assist families, perhaps, our television stations, as my other parliamentary colleagues have alluded to, should re-allocate more prime-time slots to Chinese educational programmes that families can enjoy watching together. We cannot underestimate the power of television and its influence in language acquisition, especially for young minds. My friend's four-year-old daughter thinks that Olinda is better than Sylvester and Taufik any time. Also, the Chinese programming should be less sublimal in content, as some of our Chinese serials are currently perceived as Government propaganda. This can be quite off-putting. Instead, they should be more fun and educational.

In some countries, the learning of second languages is a politically-charged issue, dividing communities and creating much social friction. While we place considerable emphasis on CL learning for reasons of economic survival and national preservation, we must never let our Malay and Indian fellow countrymen feel that their own MTLs are less worthy of such a comprehensive review to strengthen their own ethnic community's social and historical roots. Sir, I am pleased the Ministry will be addressing this issue soon.

With this, Sir, I support the Report's recommendations.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debate on the White Paper.

Firstly, I must congratulate the Ministry on this initiative to form the Committee to review the Chinese Language curriculum. The recommendations to have a differentiated approach to the learning of the Chinese Language is most welcomed, on the premise that children can now progress in the language at their own ability level and at their own pace, to the best capabilities that the system can allow. Students who develop a love for the language can also opt for the enrichment modules. This is a sound approach, and reading the White Paper also sets one wondering if we could have looked into such changes much earlier.

Nevertheless, what is fulfilling is the Minister's assertion earlier that these changes mean greater flexibility and enjoyment. The word "enjoyment" is precious, because it is great to bring joy as we learn a language. The word "enjoyment" is seldom associated with the acquisition of a second language. So it is my hope that we will not stray from the concept of enjoying the learning of a second language. Speakers before me have already outlined many ways of bringing joy into language learning. All that I will say at this point is that one sure way of taking the fun out is to introduce at too early a stage the rigours of memorising grammar rules and characters, and identifying sentence structures and word type. Children can recoil from the language learning but stay with it out of an obligation to the system an understanding of why it is important to go to school, love for their parents, teachers and tuition teachers. And they have not had fun through a demanding curriculum and workload or perhaps weak teaching techniques. So, enjoyment is very crucial to the learning of a language.

Next, to some concerns that I have. The current bilingual policy is one that limits choice of language by ethnic group. I am asking if we can make it easier for perhaps the Malay and Indian communities to also study Chinese as a second language. Currently, prior approval is needed from the Ministry. While English is our administrative language, Chinese is fast becoming a language of social discourse and for business. In fact, in certain service-oriented industries, being Chinese-speaking has become a pre-requisite for the job.

Let me cite an example of how this phenomenon takes place on the ground. I met an Indian lady from the Women's Executive Committee of a CC at a function, and was intrigued when she told me that their meetings are conducted in Mandarin and she depends on translations from her volunteer colleagues to know what to do as a volunteer. She is not unduly upset. Nevertheless, she is frustrated. If this is the kind of scenario that we have, then as our society is moving, this phenomenon needs both careful moderation and monitoring for social cohesion reasons, as well as we also need to really consider whether we can open up the learning of Mandarin to other ethnic groups and help them along.

I would also like to cite an example of how this can be done. At Alexandra Hospital where I work, up to recently, the President of the Mandarin Toastmasters' Club was our Chief Pharmacist, Ms Fatimah Mohidin Kutty, who is an Indian Muslim and a Malayalee. Tamil is not her mother tongue, but she did Mandarin in school without tuition. She only had tuition for her "O" and "A" levels. Her two sons today, however, do Tamil. Both

parents are not Tamil-speaking. She opted for Tamil because she heard that the Mandarin syllabus has gotten much tougher. Of course now, she does wonder if it was a good choice under this differentiated approach. The point here is that there are parents from other communities who would like to have this option of letting their children study Mandarin.

The other concern that I have is over Tamil as a second language. I was very happy to hear earlier that the Minister has said that there would be a taskforce that would also be set up to look into the issues of what can be done where Tamil is concerned. From what I have gathered, the Tamil standards are considered by some quarters to be too high. There is also a concern about how other Indian languages are being offered, monitored and how the examination processes take place. Perhaps, these could be terms of reference.

Lastly, Singapore's bilingual policy is one step in getting us closer to our cultural roots while we use English for administrative purposes. But with globalisation and markets that can open up in the Arab world, India and South America, we need to be more nimble as we acquire languages. Even as we focus on English and mother tongue, we need to include, in my opinion, a component in the curriculum that deals with multi-culturalism and diversity. Even as we sink roots deeper into our individual cultures, a comprehensive approach to multi-culturalism will make the Singaporean an individual who is ever-ready to appreciate other cultures, who will go into the world, wherever he or she is needed to go, without a trace of cultural imperialism, as Singaporeans whom we can be proud of.

Order. We shall stop now.

Resolved,

That the Debate be now ajdourned. - [Mr Lim Swee Say].

Resumption of debate, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved,

"That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Lim Swee Say].

Adjourned accordingly at

Thirteen Minutes to Seven o'clock pm.

asked the Minister for Education (a) what is his Ministry's policy on non-Chinese students taking up Chinese language as their second language; and (b) if he will give a breakdown of how many Malays and Indians have taken Chinese as their second language from 1999-2004.

Our bilingual policy gives consideration to non-Chinese students who apply to take up Chinese as their second language. Approval is given on a case-by-case basis, for example, where students are of mixed parentage, or where the students have studied Chinese before.

On average the number of Malay and Indian students that took up Chinese as their second language in the last six years was less than 1% and 5% of their respective ethnic groups each year. In absolute numbers, we have a total of about 660 Malay and 2,000 Indian students studying Chinese as their second language in primary and secondary schools, Junior Colleges and the Centralised Institutes.